


ΡΨ ων ΝΟ ς τρ τ τ ον ee 











᾿ OCT 12 iy¥/1 vi 
My ἐν 
“Ovogies, cert? 


Ἡ 1) Υ̓ Ὶ 
ΠΛ 


ἫΝ 


0} 





: 
4 UVa 
WR tk ATT UREN mh 
<a ¥) thas i Head 4 ra) 
ve isin 
ΝΣ 
ead mt yh 

ah Jj ᾽ 


Ων Ὶ 
ayn ΣΝ 


NAG 
᾿ 


A) 
ἱ 


My 
»» 


ἌΝ 
wie 


ih 


PRY es; 
ΩΣ 
ἡ aN 
TE ΑΝ 


ἐν ΠΝ 
δε ne 
ΤΉΛΩ ΡΨ ΑΝ 
hE td GRANT CNY 
PPE RU ON ; 
Nal Ἷ ὲ ΜΙΝ 





Digitized by the Internet Archive 
in 2009 


https://archive.org/details/sayingsofjesusse0Oharn 


CROWN THEOLOGICAL LIBRARY 


HARNACK’S THE SAYINGS OF JESUS 





New Testament Studies 


II 
THE SAYINGS OF JESUS 


THE SECOND SOURCE OF ST. MATTHEW 
AND ST. LUKE 


BY 


ADOLF HARNACK 


PROFESSOR OF CHURCH HISTORY IN THE 
UNIVERSITY OF BERLIN 


TRANSLATED BY 


THE REV. J. R. WILKINSON, M.A. 


LATE SCHOLAR OF WORCESTER COLLEGE, 
OXFORD ; RECTOR OF WINFORD 


NEW YORK: G. P. PUTNAM’S SONS 
LONDON: WILLIAMS & NORGATE 
1908 


q 
q 








Printed by BALLANTYNE δ» Co, Limtrep 
2 παύει ock Street 4 ond on ‘ 


tae 





PREFACE 


In the following pages an attempt is made to deter- 
mine exactly the second source of St. Matthew and St. 
Luke (Q) both in regard to its extent and its contents, 
and to estimate its value both in itself and relatively 
to the Gospel of St. Mark. I have been moved to 
complete and to publish these investigations by Well- 
hausen’s “ Introduction to the First Three Gospels” 
(1905). The attitude of opposition I am driven to 
adopt towards an imporiant result of Wellhausen’s 
researches, does not detract from my high appreciation 
of the merit of this work. 

A supplementary observation which I have made 
may serve as an additional proof of the unity of the 
source Q. In St. Matthew are found about 112 words, 
and in St. Luke (without the Acts) about 261, which 
occur in these gospels and do not occur elsewhere in 
the New Testament. Now of these 373 words, the 
reconstructed text of Q given on pp. 127 ff. contains 
at the most 16—i.e. 13 (12) from St. Matthew (βιαστής, 
βροχή, διχάζειν [ἐγκρύπτειν], εὐνοεῖν, ἰῶτα, νοσσίον, 
οἰκετεία, οἰκιακός, παρομοιάζειν, παροψίς, πλατύς, 
ῥαπίζειν), and 3 from St. Luke (ἀπομάσσεσθαι, βαλ- 
λάντιον, κόραξ); yet it is questionable whether three 
of these really belong to Q. That it is thus possible 
to construct the fairly extensive text of Q without 
making a further demand than of 12 to 16 words upon 


Υ 


vi PREFACE 


the copious and distinctive vocabularies of St. Matthew 
and St. Luke, is a welcome additional proof of the 
distinct individuality of Q. On the other hand, the ~ 
variety of the stylistic, rhetorical, and poetic forms in 
which the discourses and sayings in Q are thus seen to 
be cast, is no argument against its distinctive unity, 
but even serves to confirm our confidence in the indi- 
viduality as well as in the genuineness and originality 
of this source. 

If in the following investigation I have correctly 
defined the limits and have justly estimated the value 
of Q, I have only given fresh utterance to the long- 
established judgment of competent scholars, though it 
is to be hoped that I have established it upon a more 
secure foundation than that upon which it has rested 
hitherto. No words of mine are needed to explain 
what this means for our knowledge of the history of 
our Lord. And yet one can scarcely hope that there 
will be an end of wild hypotheses in regard to that 
history. The temptation to confine one’s gaze to 
isolated details, and to view these as reflected in the 
distorting mirror of prepossession and _ prejudice, 
without deep and reverent study of tradition, is too 
great for us to expect that these strivings will ever 
cease. 

I offer my hearty thanks to my friend Professor von 
Dobschiitz for the active and kindly interest which he 
has devoted to this undertaking of mine while it was 
passing through the press. 

AoE: 


BERLIN, 8th December, 1906. 


CONTENTS 


INTRODUCTION . 


Ν 


CHAPTER I 


THE ANALYSIS AND TEXTUAL INVESTIGATION 
OF THE Non-MARKAN SECTIONS COMMON TO 
St. MATTHEW AND St. LUKE 


I. The sections almost verbally identical 


11. The sections where the differences are greater 
Appendix. The sections where the differences are 
very great . 


CHAPTER II 


LINGUISTIC AND HISTORICAL INVESTIGATION 
OF THE NON-MARKAN SECTIONS COMMON TO 
St. ΜΑΤΤΗΒῪ anpD St. LUKE (Q) 


I. The text . 


II. (a) Vocabulary (Verbs p. 147 7; Substantives 
and Adjectives, 152 7. ; Prepositions, 157 /.) . 
(6) Grammar and style . 
111. The formal characteristics of the subject-matter . 
IV. The order of the sections 


VY. Can we discover any trace of Q in the matter that 
is peculiar to St. Matthew or to St. Luke, or 
in indirect Evangelic tradition ? : . 

Vii 


PAGE 


118 


127 


147 
159 


163 
172 


182 


viil CONTENTS 


PAGE 
VI. The essential characteristics of the contents of Q. 
A comparison of Q with the Gospel of 
St. Mark . : 4 j ᾿ ; : - ioe 
VII. The origin and historical value Ὁ. ; . 246 
Appendix. Translation of Q ; : : aoe 
Excursvs I. St. Matt. xi. 25-27 Sg Luke x. 21 ἄν. and 
St. Matt. xi, 28,29 . : : . BES 
Excursvs II. The Voice from Heaven at ithe Baptism 
(St. Luke iii. 22) ; : : : : ‘ ΑΜ. 


INDEX TO THE RECONSTRUCTED TEXT OF Q. : 57> ee 


INTRODUCTION 


Tue sections which are common to St. Matthew and 
St. Luke, excluding those which they share with St. 
Mark, are, as is well known, very considerable both 
in number and content. ‘They amount altogether 
to about one-sixth of the text of St. Luke and two- 
elevenths of the text of St. Matthew.! The researches 
of very many scholars have led them to the unanimous 
conclusion that neither St. Matthew nor St. Luke have 
copied the one from the other, and that these sections 
are thus dependent upon either one or several common 
sources. ‘The former alternative is generally preferred, 
and rightly so; and yet one does not thereby conceal 
from oneself the possibility that it may well have been 
otherwise, and that in regard to many points of detail 
and many passages there is still room for the hypo- 
thesis of several written sources and even of depend- 
ence upon oral tradition. In this connection a great 
number of other questions arise which cannot be 
passed by. ‘The most important are the following :— 

1. Is it not possible that after the publication of the 

1 Here of course difficulties begin at once. It is not always a 
simple matter to determine the limits of these sections; different 
opinions may be held as to the origin of the doublets which are 
found both in St. Matthew and St. Luke; and in regard to a few 
important sections, it must remain doubtful whether they are not 


mutually dependent upon a much earlier source, which is thus not 


identical with the main source. 
iz 


Χ INTRODUCTION 


gospel of St. Luke and St. Matthew the one was so 
much corrected from the other! that the task of 
settling the text of the source has been rendered very 
difficult ? 

2. Did St. Matthew and St. Luke use the same 
recension of Q? Or did the former use it in one form 
(9 3), the latter in another (Ὁ 3, Q3, Q 4, ἂς.) 

3. If Q first existed in Aramaic, did one or both of 
the evangelists pay attention to this Aramaic original,? 
and occasionally make use of it ? 

4, Since it is a priort probable that neither of the 
two evangelists quite exhausted the contents of the 
source, in which of them is it best reproduced both 
in regard to extent and arrangement? and which of 
the passages that are transmitted to us by only one 
of our authorities belong nevertheless to the source? 

5. Judging from the investigation of those sections 
which may be with certainty assigned to the source, 
are we to regard Q as a collection of sayings or a 
“gospel”? And is it possible that the answer to 
this question may afford us a principle by which we 
may decide whether doubtful sections belong or do 
not belong tothe source? Or, if this question cannot 
be answered, is it not hopeless to attempt to determine 
the extent of Q? 

These problems, so numerous and of such intense 
importance, seem to render it so difficult to answer 
the question: What is Q? that one can easily under- 
stand a person of sceptical mind refusing to concern 


1 Compare, for instance, Blass’s reconstruction of the text of 
St. Matthew (“ Evang. sec. Matth. 1901”’). 

2 It is quite certain that in general both used one and the same 
Greek translation. 


INTRODUCTION xi 


himself with it. Yet, on the other hand, such scepti- 
cism is only permissible when there is distinct proof 
of the hopelessness of all attempts to solve the 
question. But no proof of such a kind has as yet 
been produced. It is true that Q has been much 
written about and investigated by Weiss, Holtzmann, 
Wendt, and Wernle, and by other scholars following 
their lead, last of all by Wellhausen—though it is 
strange how much more attention has been devoted 
to St. Mark; but as yet no work has appeared which 
takes into account all the details. Such a work ought 
In ‘the first place to confine itself with rigorous ex- 
clusiveness to the non-Markan passages which are 
common to St. Matthew and St. Luke; to subject 
these to a thorough investigation from the point of 
view of grammar, style, and literary criticism in 
general, and after having thus gained a firm stand- 
point, to see what definite results may be deduced. If 
such an investigation fails of its aim—that is, if it is 
shown that nothing connected or distinctive is evolved 
from the study of the passages in question—then it 
follows that Q vanishes as a tangible entity, indeed 
disappears altogether, and accordingly that the pro- 
blem of the relationship between St. Matthew and 
St. Luke in those parts which are not covered by 
St. Mark is declared to be insoluble. The necessary 
consequence of this would be that the discourses and’ 
narratives contained in these portions of the gospels 
(whether in sections of greater or smaller extent) 
would have to be dealt with each by itself. 

Up to the present, however, there has been no final 
settlement of the preliminary textual question—in 


ΧΙ INTRODUCTION 


which of the two gospels do these sections appear in 
their more original form? If we seek counsel among 
the critics we only meet with unconvincing statements, 
that both evangelists allowed themselves to. make 
numerous changes and revisions of the text, while it 
is usually added that on the whole more trust is to 
be placed in St. Luke than in St. Matthew.t One 
seeks in vain for a proof of this thesis, in so far as its 
feeble character at all permits of one, and even the 
question which at once suggests itsel{—What are then 
the points of view and the principles in accordance 
with which St. Matthew and St. Luke have respec- 
tively corrected the source ?—is propounded by scarcely 
a single critic. ‘The situation here is the same as in 
the case of a dozen other important problems of the 
criticism of the gospels: men soar away into sublime 
discussions concerning the meaning of “the Kingdom 
of God,” the “Son of Man,” “ Messiahship,” &c., and 
occupy themselves with investigations into the “ history 
of religion,” and with problems of genuineness, in the 
light of “higher” criticism (as if the critic were in- 
spired with absolute knowledge of historical matters 
from some secret source); while the “ lower” problems, 
whose treatment involves real scavenger’s labour in 
which one is almost choked with dust, are passed by 
on the other side. Or where this is not the case, the 
investigation is still never carried far enough; it 
breaks off prematurely, and the critic rests satisfied 
with work only half done. Hence the wretched plight 

1 Wernle forms an exception. This scholar has shown that apart 
from some instances of severe revision the text appears in a more 


trustworthy form in St. Matthew. His work on Q is quite excellent 
but not detailed enough. 


INTRODUCTION xiii 


in which the criticism of the gospels finds itself in 
these days, and indeed has always found itself !—with 
the exception of the work of a few critics, and apart 
from the Markan problem, which has been treated with 
scientific thoroughness. 

But even in the case of the Markan problem much 
important work remains to be accomplished by the 


1 This wretched state of affairs is apparent above all in the case 
of those who are compelled to take their knowledge of the criticism 
of the New Testament at second-hand, or have condemned them- 
selves to this unassuming intellectual position. They are like reeds 
swaying with the blasts of the most extreme and mutually exclusive 
hypotheses, and find everything in this connection which is offered 
them ‘“‘ very worthy of consideration.” To-day they are ready to 
believe that there was no such person as Jesus, while yesterday they 
regarded Him as a neurotic visionary, shown to be such with con- 
vincing force by His own words, if only these are rightly interpreted, 
which words by the way have been excellently transmitted by 
tradition. To-morrow He has become for them an Essene, as may 
be proved likewise from His own words; and yet the day before 
yesterday none of these words were His own; and perhaps on the 
very same day it was accounted correct to regard Him as belonging 
to some Greek sect of esoteric Gnostics—a sect which still remains 
. to be discovered, and which with its symbols and sacraments repre- 
sented a religion of a chaotic and retrograde character, nay, exercised 
a beneficial influence upon the development of culture. Or rather, 
He was an anarchist monk like Tolstoi; or, still better, a genuine 
Buddhist, who had, however, come under the influence of ideas 
originating in ancient Babylon, Persia, Egypt, and Greece; or, 
better still, He was the eponymous hero of the mildly revolutionary 
and moderately radical fourth estate in the capital of the Roman 
world. It is evident, forsooth, that he may possibly have been all of 
these things, and may be assumed to have been one of them. If 
therefore one only keeps hold of all these reins, naturally with a 
loose hand, one is shielded from the reproach of not being up to 
date, and this is more important by far than the knowledge of the 
facts themselves, which indeed do not so much concern us, seeing 
that in this twentieth century we must of course wean ourselves 
from a contemptible dependence upon history in matters of religion, 


χὶν INTRODUCTION 


“lower” criticism, and remarkably little is to be 
found in our books on the question of the relation- 
ship of Q to St. Mark. “The problem of the ~ 
literary relationship between Q and St. Mark must 
at least be propounded and needs thorough in- 
vestigation. It is indeed most extraordinary, to use 
only a mild expression, that such an investigation 
up to the present has never been set on foot” 
(Wellhausen, “ Kinleitung in die drei ersten Evan- 
gelien,” 5. 73). The last remark is scarcely correct; 
several scholars have occupied themselves with the 
problem. But Wellhausen’s astonishment is never- 
theless quite justifiable. If the criticism of the 
gospels had been carried on methodically, so that 
each scholar stood as it were upon the shoulders of 
his predecessor, this cardinal problem would neces- 
sarily have been thoroughly discussed long ago, the 
whole material for discussion would have been set 
in order, and the definite and final conclusion would 
have been drawn. Instead of this everything is still 
enveloped in a cloud of uncertainty, and amid the 
dearth of preliminary studies of a connected and 
scientific character, we can easily understand how it 
has come to pass that Wellhausen has produced a 
solution of the problem which has this merit, that 
by its very paradox it has summoned theologians 
to descend from the airy heights of their critical 
speculations and to gird themselves for strenuous 
labour as hewers in the mines of knowledge. 

In the following treatise I begin by ascertaining 
the relatively original text of the sections which are 
exclusively common to St. Matthew and St. Luke, and 


INTRODUCTION XV 


by deducing at the same time the points of view and 
the principles according to which each of the two 
evangelists has worked—that is, has edited the hypo- 
thetical common source. Before coming to a conclusion 
as to the most approximately original text of St. 
Matthew and St. Mark, I have thoroughly worked 
through the texts adopted by Blass, Wellhausen, and 
others, together with the editions of older scholars. I 
have convinced myself anew of a fact that I had already 
learned at the time of my studies on the text of the 
Acts—namely, that Blass has assigned far too great 
weight to the testimony of the important Codex D 
with its satellites, as well as to the isolated readings of 
other authorities (Chrysostom !). In my opinion, even 
Wellhausen goes too far in this direction. Neither 
can I recognise that the text of St. Luke has had the 
subsequent influence upon the text of St. Matthew 
which Blass supposes; indeed, as compared with him, I 
keep much more closely to the text of Westcott and 
Hort. 

As is well known, the sections of St. Matthew and 
St. Luke which concern us are of such a character 
that a very considerable portion of them occurs in 
practically verbal similarity in the two gospels, while 
another (very small) portion shows variations which 
are so great as to compel us to doubt whether it is 
even possible to accept in their case the hypothesis of 
a@common immediate source (vide p. v). In between 
lies the great mass of the remaining sections, which 
show more or less numerous and important variants. 
The first group has the great advantage in that from 
it we are enabled to draw conclusions of the highest 


Xvi INTRODUCTION 


probability. I have therefore divided the material 
into three parts, and I shall first consider those sec- 
tions in which the differences between St. Matthew | 
and St. Luke are comparatively very slight. Equipped 
with the results of this investigation, I shall proceed 
to the examination of the second group, in which 
the differences are more numerous. I shall then, 
only after the fashion of an appendix, deal with 
those sections in which the difference is so great that 
one must seriously doubt whether they belong to Q. 

They include only one saying and two parables. 


CHAPTER I 3 


THE ANALYSIS AND THE TEXTUAL INVESTIGATION OF THE 


NON-MARKAN SECTIONS COMMON TO 


AND 51. LUKE (0). 


Ai 


St. Matt. iii. 7°: ΤΓεννή- 
’ ~ ze , 
ματα ἐχιδνῶν, Tis ὑπέδειξεν 
ὑμῖν φυγεῖν ἀπὸ τῆς 
μελλούσης ὀργῆς ; : (8) 
ποιήσατε οὖν καρπὸν ἄξιον 
τῆς μετανοίας" (9) καὶ μὴ 
δόξητε λέγειν ἐν ἑαυτοῖς" 
’ » \ 7A 

πατέρα ἔχομεν τὸν β- 
ρσάμ' λέγω γὰρ ὑμῖν ὅτι 
δύναται ὁ θεὸς ἐκ τῶν λίθων 
τούτων ἐγεῖραι τέκνα τῷ 
᾿Αβραάμ. (10) ἤδη δὲ ἡ 
>] ’ Ἁ A er A 
ἀξίνη πρὸς τὴν ῥίζαν τῶν 
ἕνδρων κεῖται" πᾶν οὖν 
δένδρον μὴ ποιοῦν καρπὸν 
καλὸν ἐκκόπτεται καὶ εἰς 


πῦρ βάλλεται... (12) 


ST. MATTHEW 


= St. Luke iii. 7°, 8, 9, 17. 


4A >) , 
καρποὺς ἀξίους 
μὴ 
ἄρξησθε ἐν ἑαυτοῖς pro- 
bably wanting 


[δυνατὸς 2] 


δὲ καὶ 


1 Wellhausen omits καλόν, because it is wanting in Syr. Sin., and 


because the contrast lies between “fruitful and unfruitful.” 


But 


Syr. Sin. by itself is too weak an authority. St. Luke has the 


word, and logic ought not to have the casting vote. 


Besides καλόν 


could easily fall out of the text after καρπόν. 


A 


ῷ THE SAYINGS OF JESUS 


οὗ TO πτύον ἐν TH χειρὶ 
> “ A a 4 9 “ A lal 
αὐτοῦ, καὶ διακαθαριεῖ τὴν αὐτοῦ (τοῦ) διακαθᾶραι 


ἅλωνα αὐτοῦ καὶ συνάξει καὶ συναγαγεῖν (1) 


\ - “ a wn . 
τὸν σῖτον αὐτοῦ εἰς THY αὐτοῦ pr. perhaps wanting, 
a Ld . 9 
ἀποθήκην, τὸ δὲ ἄχυρον αὐτοῦ sec. certain. ἀπο- 
9 ΄ 
κατακαύσει πυρὶ ἀσβέστῳ. θήκην (αὐτοῦ) 


Verse 11 (= Luke iii. 16) stands also in St. Mark; 
there and in Ὁ it had essentially the same form; in Ὁ 
it ran as follows :— 


ἐγὼ μὲν ὑμᾶς βαπτίζω ὕδατι βαπτίζω ὑμᾶς (with- 
ἐν ὕδατι εἰς μετάνοιαν" ὁ out ἐν and εἰς peray.), as 
δὲ ὀπίσω μου ἐρχόμενος in St. Mark. The remain- 
ἰσχυρότερός μού ἐστιν, οὗ ing variants in St. Luke 
οὐκ εἰμὶ ἱκανὸς Ta ὑποδή- are likewise due to the in- 
ματα βαστάσαι: αὐτὸς fluence of the Markan text. 
ὑμᾶς βαπτίσει ἐν πνεύματι ἁγίῳ is very doubtful. 
ἁγίῳ καὶ πυρί. 

The few variants are easily explained ; almost always 
St. Luke appears as the evangelist who has altered the 
original text. He has substituted the plural καρπούς 
for the not very logical singular; he has replaced μὴ 
δόξητε by μὴ ἄρξησθε (a favourite phrase of his); 1 
he has improved the construction by the infinitive 
(διακαθᾶραι).2 and instead of the more pregnant ex- 


1 Yet this is not quite certain. J. H. Moulton (‘‘A Grammar of 
N. T. Greek,” 1906, p. 15) thinks, on the contrary, that ἄρξησθε is 
more original, because it is a Semitic idiom (so also Dalman and 
Wernle); but it is frequently found in St. Luke even where he is 
independent of Q, and seems to have been used by him purposely 
(in imitation). 

? It is questionable whether St. Luke wrote συναγαγεῖν, or συνάξει 
with St. Matthew; the authorities are evenly balanced on this 
point. At all events, συνάξει stood in Q. 


Φ 


INVESTIGATION OF THE TEXT 3 


pression, “his wheat into the barn,” he has inserted 
the smoother phrase, “ the wheat into his barn.” Kai 
in verse 10 is added by St. Luke to give more flexi- 
bility to the construction, as in the case of St. Matt. 
xxiv. 28, and elsewhere. ‘Ihe style is also improved 
by the placing of ὕδατι (without ἐν) at the beginning. 
Probably the reading δυνατός is original in St. Luke, 
but it was substituted for the reading of the source by 
the evangelist himself. In St. Matthew and St. Mark 
it is never used of a person; see, however, St. Luke 
i. 49; xiv. 31; xxiv. 19, and four passages in the 
Acts.—St. Luke perhaps wrote: καὶ τὸν μὲν σῖτον 
συνάξει εἰς ἀποθήκην. We cannot be certain that 
eis μετάνοιαν belonged to Q; yet it is very probable 
that it stood in the source, for its absence in St. Luke 
* is not decisive, seeing that St. Luke follows the text 
of St. Mark; and seeing, moreover, that μετάνοια does 
not occur in St. Matthew except in this section from 
Q, it is not probable that that evangelist added it 
of his own initiative. (On the other hand, in other 
passages μετάνοια is purposely added by St. Luke; 
here however it could the more easily fall out of the 
text, seeing that it has no corresponding antithesis in 
the following clause.) The end of the verse as it 
stood in Q can no longer be restored with certainty. 
In St. Mark the text ran ἐν πνεύματι ἁγίῳ; in St. 
Matthew, ἐν πνεύματι ἁγίῳ καὶ πυρί; in St. Luke, 
ἐν πνεύματι καὶ πυρί (in both cases Syr. Sin. gives the 
words in the reverse order). It is therefore most pro- 
bable that Q read ἐν πυρί, for this phrase only is 
covered by the succeeding clauses which do not 
develop ἐν πνεύματι ἁγίῳ. 


4 THE SAYINGS 


St. Matt. vi. 21: ὕπου 
, > e , 
yap [ἐστιν] ὁ θησαυρός 
σου, ἐκεῖ [ἔσται] καὶ ἡ 
καρδία σου. (22) ὁ λύχνος 
τοῦ σῶματός ἐστιν ὁ ὀφ- 
θαλμός. ἐὰν ovv ἢ ὁ ὀφ- 
θαλμός σου ἁπλοῦς, ὅλον 
τὸ σῶμά σου φωτεινὸν 
ἔσται’ (23) ἐὰν δὲ ὁ 
ὀφθαλμός σου πονηρὸς fi, 
ὅλον τὸ σῶμά σου σκοτει- 
. Κ᾿“ + 54 ᾿ - 
νὸν ἔσται. εἰ οὖν τὸ φως 
τὸ ἐν σοὶ σκότος ἐστίν, τὸ 
σκότος πόσον! (24) οὐδεὶς 
δύναται δυσὶ κυρίοις δου- 
λεύειν: ἢ γὰρ τὸν ἕνα 
μισήσει τὸν ἕτερον 
> t * Re, ae ? , 
ἀγαπήσει, ἢ ἑνὸς ἀνθέξεται 
καὶ τοῦ ἑτέρου κατα- 
, ’ , 4 
φρονήσει' ov δύνασθε θεῳ 
δουλεύειν μαμωνᾷ. 
(25) διὰ τοῦτο λέγω ὑμῖν, μὴ 
μεριμνᾶτε τῇ ψυχῃ ὑμῶν 
’ 
τί φάγητε, μηδὲ τῷ σώματι 
e “~ , ’ z 9 4A 
ὑμῶν τί ἐνδύσησθε" οὐχὶ 
e 4 a? 3 A 
ἡ ψυχὴ πλεῖόν ἐστιν τῆς 
τροφῆς καὶ τὸ σῶμα τοῦ 
ἐνδύματος; (96) ἐμβλέ- 
ψατε εἰς τὰ πετεινὰ τοῦ 
οὐρανοῦ, ὅτι οὐ σπείρου- 
σιν οὐδὲ θηρίζουσιν οὐδὲ 
συνάγουσιν εἰς ἀποθήκας, 


4 
Kal 


‘ 
και 


OF JESUS 


=St. Luke xii. 34; xi. 

34, 35; xvi. 13; xii. 22- 

31. For cov both times 

ὑμῶν, Probably cov after 

ὀφθαλμός pr. 

ὅταν ὁ... ἁπλοῦς ἢ 
καὶ ὅλον 


Ψ ‘ 
ἐστιν ἐπὰν 
ε ’ 
ὁ ὀφθαλμὸς cov om. 
A 4 a , “ 
καὶ τὸ σῶμα σου (Om. OA.) 
ἔσται om. 
A ‘ ~ 
μή TO φῶς 
, 
πόσον om. 


’ _~ 
OKOTEL οὖν 

A ’ 
TO σκοτος 

9 4 ae: 
οὐδεὶς οἰκετῆς 


ὑμων OM. 


ὑμῶν OM. 


ἡ γὰρ ψυχὴ 


κατα- 
νοήσατε τοὺς κόρ ακας 
without τοῦ oupavou 
οὔτε 


οὔτε 
οἷς οὐκ 
ΕΣ - 9 Vs , 

ἔστιν ταμεῖον οὐδὲ ἀποθήκη 


INVESTIGATION 
Kal ὁ πατὴρ ὑμῶν ὁ οὐράνιος 
τρέφει avTa* οὐχ ὑμεῖς 
μάλλον διαφέρετε αὐτῶν ; 
(27) τίς δὲ ἐξ ὑμῶν μεριμ- 
νῶν δύναται προσθεῖναι € ἐπὶ 
τὴν ἡλικίαν αὐτοῦ πῆχυν 

(28) καὶ περὶ ἐνδύ- 

; ις 

ματος τί μεριμνᾶτε; 
μάθετε τὰ κρίνα τοῦ ἀγροῦ 
πῶς WEAVOUTLY οὐ κοπιῶσιν 
οὐδὲ νήθουσιν' (39) λέγω δὲ 
ὑμῖν ὅτι οὐδὲ Σολομὼν ἐν 


κατα- 


“4 ΄- Υ 9 aw 
πάσῃ τῇ δόξη αὐτοῦ περιε- 
βάλετο ὡς ἕν τούτων. 
A ~ 
(90) ef de τὸν χόρτον τοῦ 
ἀγροῦ σήμερον ὄντα καὶ 
αὔριον εἰς κλίβανον βαλλό- 
e A A , , 
μενον 0 Geos οὕτως ἀμφιέν- 
οὐ πολλῷ μάλλον 
ὑμᾶς, ὀλιγόπιστοι; (91) 
μὴ οὖν μεριμνήσητε λέ- 
γοντες" τί φάγωμεν ; ἢ τί 
’ «ἃ , , 
πίωμεν; ἢ TL περιβαλώ- 
μεθα; ; (32) πάντα γὰρ 
ταῦτα τὰ ἔθνη ἐπιζητοῦσιν 
οἶδεν γὰρ ὁ πατὴρ ὑμῶν ὁ 
οὐράνιος ὅτι χρήζετε τού- 
των ἁπάντων. (33) ζητεῖτε 
A a ‘ Ἐ 
δὲ πρῶτον τὴν βασιλείαν 
καὶ τὴν δικαιοσύνην αὐτοῦ, 
ταῦτα πάντα προσ- 
τεθήσεται ὑμῖν. 


νύσιν, 


᾿ 
και 


OF THE TEXT 5 


καὶ ὁ θεὸς (om. ὑ. ὁ. ovp.) 
"5 , , ~ 
αὐτοὺς" πόσῳ μᾶλλον 
ὑμ. διαφ. τών πετεινῶν ; 


ἕνα om. In place of verse 
> , 
28: εἰ οὖν οὐδὲ ἐλάχιστον 
δύνασθε, τί περὶ τῶν λοι- 
πῶν μεριμνᾶτε ; κατανοή- 
σατε τέ κρίνα, πῶς οὔτε 
, Ε « Ι 
νήθει οὔτε ὑφαίνει" 
ὅτι om. 


ἐν ἀγρῷ τὸν χόρ- 


Ε 
τον ὄντα σήμερον 


πόσῳ for οὐ πολλ. 
καὶ ὑμεῖς μὴ 
ζητεῖτε τί φάγητε καὶ τί 
πίητε, καὶ μὴ μετεωρίζεσθε 
(for verse 31) 
ταῦτα γὰρ (πάντα) 
τ. ἔθνη τοῦ κόσμου 
ε - 42: 
ὑμ. δὲ ὁ, TAT, οἶδεν 
(without ὁ ovp.) 
ε , A 
ἁπαντων om. πλήν ζητ. 
7.Bac.avTou(without πρῶ- 
τον and x, τ. δικαιοσ.) 
πάντα om. 


6 THE SAYINGS OF JESUS 


The variants in St. Luke, in so far as they are of 
a stylistic character, appear throughout as secondary 
readings (corrections in style). This is especially clear 
in the case of σκόπει (σκοπεῖν is wanting in the gospels 
but occurs several times in St. Paul), also in the three 
instances where St. Luke removes the rhetorical ques- 
tion for the sake of smoothness (a correction which, as 
we shall see, he makes in other places), also in the 
pedantic addition of οἰκέτης (wanting in the gospels 
but occurring in Acts x. 7; Rom. xiv. 1; 1 Pet. 
ii. 18), in κατανοήσατε (constantly used by St. Luke) 
twice substituted for ἐμβλέψασθε εἰς and for the un- 
usual word καταμάθετε, in πόσῳ prefixed to μᾶλλον, 
in πόσῳ for οὐ πολλῷ; in the καὶ which is added, as 
so often, in verses 22, 23, in οἷς οὐκ ἔστιν Tap, οὐδὲ 
ἀποθήκη (improvement in style), in the feeble moral 
reflection εἰ οὖν οὐδὲ ἐλάχιστον δύνασθε (τὸ ἐλάχιστον 
is in the New Testament exclusively confined to 
St. Luke, vide in addition to this passage xvi. 10; 
xix. 17) τί περὶ τῶν λοιπῶν μεριμνᾶτε ;—also the 
absence οὗ ἕνα with πῆχυν is probably secondary ; 
likewise the sentence πῶς οὔτε νήθει οὔτε ὑφαίνει, for 
αὐξάνουσι, appeared to be unessential; and ὑφαίνει is 
a stylistic improvement upon κοπιῶσιν. In St. Matthew 
verse 28, St. Luke has replaced “clothing” by ra 
λοιπά, while in St. Matthew verse 31, he omits it 
altogether; it was evidently a matter of less anxiety 
to him than to the native of Palestine. In the same 
passage he has replaced the somewhat feeble μὴ 
μεριμνήσητε λέγοντες by the strenuous prohibition: 
καὶ ὑμεῖς (one of the few cases where St. Luke has 
the pronoun when it is wanting in St. Matthew) 


INVESTIGATION OF THE TEXT 7 


μὴ ζητεῖτε, and thus leads up to the ζητεῖτε of 
St. Matthew verse 33 (ζητεῖν is much more frequent 
in St. Luke than in St. Matthew) ; again πλήν is inserted 
by him (it is found five times in St. Matthew, fifteen 
times in St. Luke). The phrase μὴ μετεωρίζεσθε is 
singular both in St. Luke and in the New Testament. 
No. certain interpretation can be given of the phrase 
as found here (it occurs in Philo, Sirach, Plutarch, and 
the medical authors). It may mean either “be not 
high-minded,” or “seek not after high things,” or 
“be not covetous,” or “be not driven hither and 
thither (by cares).” If the word stood in Q it is not 
without significance for determining the plane of 
culture of the first translator of the source; but it 
is much more probable that St. Luke inserted it in 
place of τί περιβαλώμεθα. In this case it is to be 
taken in the same general sense as the phrase pre- 
viously inserted by him: τί περὶ τῶν λοιπῶν μεριμνᾶτε. 
On the other hand, the text of St. Luke is, as it seems, 
to be preferred where the phraseology is less biblical 
and liturgical than that of St. Matthew; thus where 
he reads τοὺς κόρακας, ὁ θεός (for ὁ O Tarp | ὑμων ὁ οὐρ.), 
τὰ κρίνα (without τοῦ ἀγροῦ) and ἐν ἀγρῷ τὸν χόρτον 
ΠΡ Te Ns, τ. ἀγρδυ), in the omission of ὁ οὐράνιος 
(with Tari), in the expression ta ἐθνη τοῦ κόσμου 
(τ. κόσμ. is unnecessary in the language of the 
Bible), in the omission of πρῶτον and τὴν δικαιοσύνην. 
II paérov indeed is wanting in some authorities for the 
text of St. Matthew, and δικαιοσύνη as an element in 
the gospel proclamation of the synoptists is found 
only in St. Matthew. And yet τὰ πετεινὰ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ 
is perhaps to be preferred to τοὺς κόρακας, for St. Luke 


8 THE 


SAYINGS OF JESUS 


uses this expression also in the parable of the Mustard 
Seed (vide infra) and in ix. 58. He may have pre- 
ferred to use a more specific word in this passage, 
because of the specific word (τὰ κρίνα) which follows. 
Tov κόσμου may also have been added by St. Luke. 


St. Matt. vii. 1: My 
κρίνετε, ἵνα μὴ κριθῆτε. 
(2) ἐν ᾧ γὰρ κρίματι 


5 


κρίνετε κριθήσεσθε, καὶ ἐν 
ᾧ μέτρῳ “μετρεῖτε μετρη- 
pera: vuiv. (3) τί δὲ 
βλέπεις τὸ κάρφος τὸ ἐν 
τῷ ὀφθαλμῷ τοῦ ἀδελφοῦ 
σου, τὴν δὲ 
ὀφθαλμῷ δοκὸν οὐ κατα- 


ἐν τῷ σῷ 


a « “A 9 “ ὧς 
νοεῖς; (4) ἤ πῶς ἐρεῖς TH 
ἀδελφῷ σου" ἄφες ἐκβάλω 
τὸ κάρφος ἐκ τοῦ ὀφθαλ- 
μοῦ σου, καὶ ἰδοὺ ἡ δοκὸς 
ἐν τῷ ὀφθαλμῷ σου; (5) 
ὑποκριτά, ἔκβαλε πρῶτον 
ἐκ τοῦ ὀφθαλμοῦ σου τὴν 
δοκόν, καὶ τότε διαβλέψεις 
3 a \ f μὰ ΄ 
ἐκβαλεῖν τὸ καρῷος ἐκ τοῦ 


ὀφθαλμοῦ τοῦ ἀδελφοῦ 


(7) αἰτεῖτε, καὶ 
ζητεῖτε, 


TOUS: ; 
, e A 
δοθήσεται ὑμῖν" 
καὶ εὑρήσετε" κρούετε καὶ 
ἀνοιγήσεται ὑμῖν. (8) πᾶς 
A ¢ 3... πἣἢὟὝ “ 4 
yap ὁ αἰτῶν λαμβάνει, καὶ 


St. Luke vi. 37, 38, 41, 
42; xi. 9-13; vi. 31. 
καὶ ov stands for ἵνα, 
ev@.. . κριθήσεσθε καὶ 
wanting; the thought is 
developed in a quite dif- 
ferent way. ἐν wanting. 


ἀντιμετρηθήσεται 


τὴν δὲ OOK, τὴν ἐν τ. 
ἰδίῳ oO. 

πῶς (without ἢ) δύνασαι 
ἀδελφέ, ἄφες 
τὸ κάρφος τὸ ἐν τ. oO. 
σον αὐτὸς τ. ἐν τ. ὁ 
θαλμῷ σ. δοκὸν οὐ βλέπων; 


λ ἔγει ν 


"Es 
δοκόν ἐκ τ. ὁφθ. σου 
T. κάρφος τὸ ἐν 


op). T. ἀδελφ. σου 
ἐκβ. 


ἀνοιχθήσεται ? 


INVESTIGATION 


ὁ ζητῶν εὑρίσκει, καὶ τῷ 
(9) 


e 
ὑμῶν ἄν- 


κρούοντι ἀνοιγήσεται. 
93 

ἢ τίς ἐστιν ἐξ 
εἴ Ὧν τ ε e\ 
θρωπος, ον αἰτήσει O vlogs 


αὐτοῦ ἄρτον, μὴ λίθον 
9 , 7 A ἢ ᾿ 
ἐπιδώσει αὐτῷ ; (10) ἢ καὶ 
9 A 9 , A +S 

ἰχθὺν αἰτήσει, μὴ ὄφιν 


ἐπιδώσει αὐτῷ ; (11) εἰ οὖν 
ὑμεῖς πονηροὶ ὄντες οἴδατε 
Ψψ δ. , 
[δόματα] ἀγαθὰ διδόναι 
τοῖς τέκνοις ὑμῶν, 
μᾶλλον ὁ πατὴρ ὑμῶν ὁ 
ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς δύσει 
ἀγαθὰ τοῖς αἰτοῦσιν αὐτόν; 


, 
TOTW 


’ > X 
(12) πάντα οὖν ὅσα ἐὰν 
θελητε ἵνα ποιῶσιν ὑμῖν 


OF THE TEXT .. 9 


τίνα δὲ ἐξ Um. τ. 
πατέρα ὁ υἱὸς 
ἰχθύν, μὴ ἀντὶ ἰχθύος ὄφιν 
αὐτῷ ἐπιδώσει; ἢ καὶ αἰτή- 


3 
αἰτήσει 


TEL WOV, μὴ riders αὐτῷ 
, 

σκορπίον; 

ς Ψ aS 

UTAPXOVTES for ὄντε; 


ὑμῶν wanting. 
οὐρανοῦ 


ὁ ἐξ 
~ ev os , 
πνεῦμα ἅγιον for ἀγαθὰ 
καὶ 
καθὼς θέλετε 


οὕτως καὶ ὑμεῖς OM. 

« . A 
perhaps ὁμοίως after αὐτοῖς. 
προφῆται 


οἱ ἄνθρωποι, οὕτως καὶ ὑμεῖς 
ποιεῖτε αὐτοῖς" οὗτος γάρ 
ἐστιν ὁ νόμος καὶ οἱ προ- 
φῆται. 


ΟΥ̓ ΝΕ 
wanting. 


Here again we see at once that in matters of style 
Q is represented more closely by St. Matthew; this 
is very plain, ¢.g., in the case of ἵνα > καὶ ov, of πάντα 
οὖν ὅσα ἐὰν 1 καὶ καθὼς, and of ὄντες > ὑπάρχοντες 
(ὑπάρχειν is a favourite word with St. Luke). ’Ev ᾧ 
γὰρ κρίματι κρίνετε κριθήσεσθε must be judged original ; 
the parallelism with what follows was disturbed by St. 
Luke, because he inserted clauses parallel to μὴ κρίνετε 
(viz. καὶ μὴ καταδικάζετε καὶ οὐ μὴ καταδικασθῆτε' 
ἀπολύετε, καὶ ἀπολυθήσεσθε" δίδοτε, καὶ δοθήσεται 
ὑμῖν" μέτρον καλὸν πεπιεσμένον σεσαλευμένον ὑπερεκχυν- 


10 THE SAYINGS OF JESUS 


νόμενον δώσουσιν εἰς τὸν κόλπον ὑμῶν, perhaps derived 
from a Q which varied from the Q of St. Matthew). 
᾿Αδελῴφέ is certainly interpolated by St. Luke; the 
vocative is wanting in St. Matthew and St. Mark—on 
the other hand it is very frequent in the Acts; the 
vocative singular occurs also in Acts xxi. 20. The 
Lukan variant to St. Matt. vii. 9, 10 (“egg ” and “ scor- 
pion” for “loaf” and “stone,” and in reverse order) is 
problematical. The text of St. Matthew has a more 
natural sound; St. Luke is perhaps influenced by a 
Greek proverb or he possessed another recension of Q. 
He manifestly improves the text by replacing ἄνθρωπος 
and ὁ υἱὸς αὐτοῦ by “father” and “son” (the text 
which Wellhausen prefers is scarcely the right one; 
τίς comes from St. Matthew). A serious alteration 
in the sense is effected by St. Luke’s substitution of 
πνεῦμα ἅγιον for ἀγαθά, his preference for this con- 
ception is well known. 

The text of St. Matthew is subject to objection in 
only two passages. He has replaced ὁ πατὴρ ὁ ἐξ 
οὐρανοῦ (vide St. Luke xi. 16) by his usual phrase, 
ὁ πατὴρ ὑμῶν ὁ ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς, and in accordance 
with his own purpose and aim he has added to the 
«Golden Rule” the sentence: “For this is the Law 
and the Prophets.” 
καὶ 


St. Matt. viii. 19: St. Luke ix. 57-60. προ- 


᾿ ΓῚ ‘ 
προσελθὼν εἷς γραμματεὺς 
διδάσκαλε, 
3 , Ξ Μ“ +N 
ἀκολουθήσω σοι ὅπου εαν 
ἀπέρχη. (20) καὶ λέγει 
’ 


~ ΄ « ἊΨ Ψ 
αὐτῷ ὁ ᾿Ιησοῦς" αἱ ἀλώ- 


3 5: τὴν 
εἶπεν αὐτῷ" 


σελθ. εἷς γραμμ. om, εἶπέν 


τις πρὸς αὐτόν διδάσκαλε 
om. 
> 
εἶπεν 


INVESTIGATION OF THE TEXT 11 


‘ ἦὖἸ A 
πεκες φωλεοὺς ἔχουσιν Kal 
τὰ πετεινὰ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ 
κατασκηνώσεις, ὁ δὲ υἱὸς 
τοῦ ἀνθρώπου οὐκ ἔχει ποῦ 
τὴν κεφαλὴν κλίνη. (21) 
Φ δὲ “A θ “A > δὲ Ἁ 4 9 
ἕτερος de τῶν μαθητῶν εἶπεν δὲ πρὸς ἕτερον" ἀκο- 
εἶπεν αὐτῶ" κύριε, ἐπίτρε- λούθει μοι. ὁ δὲ εἶπεν" 
ψόν μοι πρῶτον ἀπελθεῖν κύριε om. ἀπελ- 
καὶ θάψαι τὸν πατέρα mov. θόντι(-τα) without καὶ 
(22) ὁ δὲ ᾿Ιησοῦς λέγει εἴπεν δὲ αὐτῴ (without6’I,) 


αὐτῷ" ἀκολούθει μοι, καὶ ἀκολ. .. καὶ οτη. — add. 
ἄφες τοὺς νεκροὺς θάψαι σὺ δὲ ἀπελθὼν διάγγελλε 
τοὺς ἑαυτῶν νεκρούς. τὴν βασιλείαν τοῦ θεοῦ 


post νεκρούς, 


The Lukan text (corresponding to St. Matt. 
viii. 21-22) is certainly clearer and so far better, 
but it is scarcely original. As the text runs in 
St. Matthew, it would have absolutely compelled a 
thoughtful writer to begin the passage with the com- 
mand of Jesus, ἀκολούθει μοι. But the εἷς ypauma- 
revs of St. Matthew must be omitted (St. Matthew, 
verse 21 of itself shows that it is a thoughtless 
interpolation; Blass indeed strikes it out of the text, 
but on insufficient grounds). We must also omit 
τῶν μαθητῶν, as well as the two vocatives of respect 
in verses 19 and 21, and ὁ ’Incovs in verse 22. The 
historic present of St. Matthew is to be retained ; 
St. Luke has altered it almost everywhere (also πρὸς 
with accusative in place of the simple dative, as well 
as the participle in place of the infinitive or the finite 
verb belong to his style)—The concluding addition 


12 THE SAYINGS OF JESUS 


in St. Luke can scarcely have stood in Q, for (1) 
διαγγέλλειν occurs again in the New Testament only 
in Acts xxi. 26 (also in Rom. ix. 17 in a quotation 
from the LX X); (2) the ἀκολούθει μοι which is antici- 
pated. in St. Luke required a_ substitute, which 
naturally had to be more emphatic than the simple 
ἀκολουθεῖν. 


St. Matt. ix. 37: tore St. Luke x. 2 
λέγει τοῖς μαθηταῖς αὐτοῦ: ἔλεγεν de πρὸς αὐτούς 
ὁ μὲν θερισμὸς πολύς, οἱ 
δὲ ἐργάται ὀλίγοι" (98) 
δεήθητε οὖν τοῦ κυρίου 
τοῦ θερισμοῦ ὅπως ἐκβάλῃ ἐργάτας ἐκβάλῃ 
ἐργάτας εἰς τὸν θερισμὸν 
Sess 
αὐτοῦ. 


The introduction in Q ran simply: λέγει αὐτοῖς or 
τοῖς μαθηταῖς αὐτοῦ.--- 51. Matthew gives the original 
order ἐκβ, ἐργ. ---- τότε is often inserted by St. 
Matthew. 


St. Matt. x. 10": ἄξιος St. Luke x. 7°. 
γὰρ ὁ ἐργάτης τῆς τροφῆς τοῦ μισθοῦ 
αὐτοῦ, 


The labourer is worthy not only of his food, 
but also—so thinks St. Luke — of his hire; the 
original lies in St. Matthew. Seeing, however, 
how short the saying is, it must remain question- 
able whether we are justified in assigning it to the 
source. 


INVESTIGATION OF THE TEXT 18 


St. Matt. x. 15: ἀμὴν St. Luke x. 12, ἀμὴν om. 
λέγω ὑμῖν: ἀνεκτότερον “Σοδόμοις ἐν τῇ ἡμέρᾳ ἐκέινῃ 
ἔσται γῇ Σοδόμων καὶ 10- ἀνεκτότερον ἔσται, 
μόρρων ἐν ἡμέρᾳ κρίσεως ἢ 
τῇ πόλει ἐκείνῃ. 


The order of the words is changed by St. Luke.— 
The words ἐν τ. 7. ἐκ. are not quite certain either in 
wording or position, yet they must not be struck 
out, seeing that they correspond to the words of 
St. Matthew, while they are not interpolated from 
that gospel. We cannot determine whether Q had 
ἐν ἡμέρᾳ κρίσεως (so four times in St. Matthew, 
wanting in the other evangelists), or ἐν τῇ ἡμέρᾳ 
ἐκείνῃ (SO, viz. in the sense of the Day of Judgment, 
twice in St. Luke, twice in St. Matthew, once in 
St. Mark). Perhaps the source read simply “in the 
Day.” It is difficult to decide between yy 2. x. I. 
or simply Σοδόμοις, The former is the more prob- 
able, as γῆ = “land,” never occurs in St. Luke’s gospel, 
and in the Acts only in the speech of St. Stephen. 


St. Matt. x. 16*: ‘dou St. Luke x. 3. ὑπάγετε 
ἐγὼ ἀποστέλλω ὑμᾶς ὡς add. ante ἰδοὺ, ἐγὼ om. 
πρόβατα ἐν μέσῳ λύκων. ἄρνας. 


ὑπάγετε is an addition of St. Luke in order to con- 
nect verse 3 with verse 2.—éyw is often struck out 
by St. Luke; the original word was πρόβατα (ἄρνας 
is more refined). For the rest, the remarks made 
upon St. Matt. x. 10° apply here also. It is 
questionable whether the saying belongs to Q. 


14 THE 
St. Matt. x. 26: 


yap ἐστιν κεκαλυμμένον 

a 2 > , 

ὃ οὐκ ἀποκαλυφθήσεται, 
\ ἵ 

καὶ κρυπτὸν ὃ οὐ γνωσθή- 

σεται. 


οὐδὲν 


SAYINGS OF JESUS 


St. Luke xii. 2, 
yap 


δέ for 


συγκεκαλυμμένον 


St. Luke prefers composite words, and substitutes 


them for simple words. 


St. Matt. xi. 3: 
ὁ ἐρχόμενος, ἢ ἕτερον προσ-- 
δοκῶμεν ; (4) καὶ ἀποκρι- 
θεὶς ὁ ᾿Ιησοῦς εἶπεν αὐτοῖς" 
πορευθέντες ἀπαγγείλατε 
Ἵ ’ a ? , A , 
wavyn ἃ ἀκούετε Kat βλέ- 
πετε" (5) τυφλοὶ ἀναβλέ- 
πουσιν καὶ χωλοὶ περιπα- 
τοῦσιν, λεπροὶ καθαρίζον- 
ται καὶ κωφοὶ ἀκούουσιν, 
καὶ νεκροὶ ἐγείρονται καὶ 
πτωχοὶ εὐαγγελίζονται" 
(6) καὶ μακαριός ἐστιν ὃς 
x 5 A > LU 
ἂν μὴ σκανδαλισθὴ ἐν ἐμοί. 
Ἰ)τούτων δὲ πορευομένων 

ρευομ 

ἤρξατο ὁ ᾿Ιησοῦς λέγειν 
τοῖς ὄχλοις περὶ ᾿Ιωάννου" 
ον τα 9 A 4 
τι ἐξήλθατε εἰς τήν ἔρημον 
θεάσασθαι; κάλαμον ὑπὸ 
Mae) , 7 
ἀνέμου σαλευόμενον; (8) 
ἀλλὰ τί ἐξήλθατε ἰδεῖν; 
ἄνθρωπον. ἐν μαλακοῖς 
b] , 9 A e ἘΝ 
ἠμφιεσμένον ; ἰδοὺ οἱ τὰ 
μαλακὰ φοροῦντες ἐν τοῖς 


\ > 
Gu ει 


St. Luke vii. 20, 22-28; 
xvi. 16. ἄλλον 


ε 
ὁ Ἴησ. om. 
Ν τ 
εἴπατεῖ 
ΠῚ τὸ 8. 45 , 
ἃ €l0ETE καὶ ἠκούσατε 


καὶ om. 


καὶ om. 


4A 
καὶ om. καὶ om. 


ἀπελθόντων δὲ τ. ἀγγε- 
λων ᾽Ιωᾶνν. ἤρξ. ὁ 
‘Ing. om. πρὸς. Τ. ὄχλ. 


ΠΣ ΝΣ 
ἱματίοις add. 

«3 ε a ο ΝΣ ΄ εἶ 
οἱ ἐν ἱματισμῷ ἐνδόξῳ καὶ 


τρυφῇ ὑπάρχοντες [διά- 


INVESTIGATION 


οἴκοις τῶν βασιλέων. (9) 
ἀλλὰ τί ἐξήλθατε; προ- 
φήτην ἰδεῖν; ναὶ λέγω ὑμῖν, 
καὶ περισσότερον προφή- 
του. (10) οὗτός ἐστιν περὶ 
οὗ γέγραπται" ἰδοὺ ἐγὼ 
ἀποστέλλω τὸν ἄγγε- 
λόν μου πρὸ προσώπου 
σου, ὃς κατασκευάσει 
τὴν ὁδόν σου ἔμπροσ- 
θέν σου. (11) ἀμὴν λέγω 
2 Σ , 

ὑμῖν, οὐκ ἐγήγερται ἐν 
γεννητοῖς γυναικῶν μείζων 
᾿Ιωάννου τοῦ βαπτῖστοῦ" 
ὁ δὲ μικρότερος ἐν τῇ 
βασιλείᾳ τῶν οὐρανῶν μεί- 
ζων αὐτοῦ ἐστιν. (12) ἀπὸ 
δὲ τῶν ἡμερῶν 
τοῦ βαπτιστοῦ ἕως ἄρτι 
ἡ βασιλεία τῶν οὐρανῶν 
βιάζεται, βιασταὶ 
ἁρπάζουσιν αὐτήν. (19) 
πάντες γὰρ οἱ προφῆται 
καὶ 6 νόμος ἕως ᾿Ιωάννου 
ἐπροφήτευσαν. 


᾿Ιωάννου 


‘ 
και 


OF THE TEXT 15 


» 


γοντες ἢ] ἐν τοῖς βασιλείοις 
εἰσίν. 
προφήτην; 


ἰδεῖν; 


es 
eyo om. 


ἀμήν om. 


μείζων ἐν γενν. yuv. ᾿Ιωαν. 
3 ᾿ 93 
(om. τ. Bart.) οὐδείς ἐστιν 


τοῦ θεοῦ 


vers. 12 and 13 are in re- 
verse order; ver. 12 runs: 
b \ ’ ε , “~ 
ἀπὸ τότε ἡ βασιλεία τοῦ 
θεοῦ εὐαγγελίζεται, καὶ πᾶς 
3 ’ A , 

εἰς αὐτὴν βιάζεται. 

ὁ νόμος kK. of προφ. μέχρι 


> , 
ἐπροφήτευσαν om. 


In the majority of cases there is no need of proof 
that here St. Luke’s recension is everywhere secondary 


(for the omission of ἐγώ, cf St. Matt. x. 16; 
apy, of St. Matt. x. 15); 


of - 
accordingly St. Matthew’s 


recension is to be preferred in the neutral cases (with 


the exception of ὁ Iycovs occurring twice). 


Ta 


16 THE SAYINGS OF JESUS 


μαλακὰ φοροῦντες is an awkward expression which 
offended St. Luke’s sense of style; τρυφή is a word 
which is wanting elsewhere in the gospels, and there- 
fore is most probably to be ascribed to St. Luke. 
The present in verse 4 is changed by St. Luke into 
the more correct aorist. Οὐκ ἐγήγερται sounded to 
him too un-Hellenic. His τοῦ θεοῦ in the place of 
τῶν οὐρανῶν may alone be original. What St. 
Matthew (Q) reads in verses 12 and 13 was as difficult 
for him to understand as for us. It is certain that 
St. Matthew, in distinction from St. Luke, has in the 
main preserved the original version—note particularly 
ἕως ApTt—because εὐαγγελίζεσθαι is a favourite word 
with St. Luke. Also the unusual order of οἱ 
προφῆται καὶ ὃ νόμος is original; πᾶς εἰς αὐτὴν 
βιάζεται is an attempt to explain the words of St. 
Matthew (Q). Are we then to suppose that St. Luke, 
who here everywhere shows himself to be less original 
than St. Matthew, is right in placing verse 13 before 
verse 12, and in inferring “continued unto” (in his 
rendering “the Law and the Prophets unto John”) 
for “prophesied unto”? It is in his favour that his 
order of the sentences is more natural than that of 
St. Matthew. But does this decide the question ? 


St. Matt. xi. 16: τίνι δὲ 
ὁμοιώσω THY γενεὰν ταύ- 
τὴν ; ὁμοία ἐστὶν παιδίοις 
καθημένοις ἐν ταῖς ἀγοραῖς, 
ἃ προσφωνοῦντα τοῖς ἐτέ- 
pots (17) λέγουσιν: ηὐλή- 

A ς 


ε a 
σαμεν υὑμῖν καὶ οὐκ 


St. Luke vii. 31-35; 
x. 13-15, 21, 22. οὖν (£. 88) 
τοὺς ἀνθρώπους τ. γενεᾶς 

’ A , ἥς δ A : 
ταύτης καὶ τίνι εἰσὶν ὅμοιοι; 
ὅμοιοί εἰσιν παιδ. τοῖς ἐν 
ἄγορ. καθημ. καὶ προσφω- 
νοῦσιν ἀλλήλοις λέγοντες" 


INVESTIGATION 


ὠρχήσασθε' ἐθρηνήσαμεν 
καὶ οὐκ ἐκόψασθε, (18) 
ἦλθεν γὰρ ᾿Ιωάννης μήτε 
ἐσθίων μήτε πίνων, καὶ 
λέγουσῖν" δαιμόνιον ἔχει. 
(19) ἦλθεν ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ ἀν- 
θρώπου ἐσθίων καὶ πίνων, 

4 , " A + 
καὶ λέγουσιν" ἰδοὺ avOpw- 
πος φάγος καὶ οἰνοπότης, 
τελωνῶν φίλος καὶ ἁμαρ- 

“ Ἁ , ’ὔ [ γ 
τωλῶν. καὶ ἐδικαιώθη ἡ 

, εἶ A A + Ξ) 
σοφία ἀπὸ τῶν [ἔργων 
τέκνων 3] αὐτῆς. 

(21) οὐαί σοι, Χορα- 
ζείν, οὐαὶ σοι, ByOcaidav: 
ὅτι εἰ ἐν Tupw καὶ Σιδῶνι 
ἐγένοντο αἱ δυνάμεις αἱ 
γενόμεναι ἐν ὑμῖν, πάλαι 
ἂν ἐν σάκκῳ καὶ σποδῷ 
μετενόησαν. Cc) πλὴν 
; λέγω v ὑμῖν, Τύρῳ καὶ Σειδῶνι 
ἀνεκτότερον ἔσται ἐν ἡμέρᾳ 
κρίσεως ἢ ὑμῖν. (23) καὶ 

\ 4 
Καφαρναούμ, μὴ ἕως 
οὐρανοῦ ὑψωθήσῃ; ἕως ᾳδου 
4 
kataQyon. .. . 

(25) ἐν ἐκείνῳ TO καιρῷ 
τι A ae an > 
ἀποκριθεὶς ὁ Ἰησοῦς εἶπεν" 
ἐξομολογοῦμαί σοι, πάτερ, 
κύριε τοῦ οὐρανοῦ καὶ τῆς 
γῆς. ὅτι ἔκρυψας ταῦτα 
ἀπὸ σοφῶν καὶ συνετῶν, 


OF THE TEXT 17 
ἐκλαύσατε 
ἐλήλυθεν ᾿Ἴωανν. [ὁ βαπ- 


, , Ψ + 
τίστης] μήτε ἔσθων ἄρτον 
λέ- 


, 4) 
μήτε πίνων οἶνον 


γετε ἐλήλυθεν 
λέγετε 
φίλ. TEA. 


, A 
σπαντων TV 
, I A 
τέκνων αὑτῆς, 


ἐγενήθησαν 


καθήμενοι μετενόησαν 
λέγω ὑμῖν om. 
(ἐν τῇ 
, 
κρίσει) 


δ -“" 
EWS TOU 


καταβιβασθήσῃ 
ἐν αὐτῇ τῇ ὥρᾳ ἠγαλ- 
λιάσατο τῷ. πνεύματι τῷ 
ἁγίῳ καὶ εἶπεν 


ἀπέκρυψας 


Β 


18 THE SAYINGS OF JESUS 


A 9 Γ 9 A 
Kal ἀπεκάλυψας auTa 
, ae Wh , 
νηπίοις" (26) vat, ὁ πατήρ, 
“ 6 9 f 9 ’ 
ὅτι οὕτως εὐδοκία ἐγένετο 
, , 
ἔμπροσθέν cov. (27) ravta 
/ A val 
μοι παρεδόθη ὑπὸ τοῦ 
’ A 9 A 
TAT POS μου, και οὐδεὶς ἐπι- 
4 \ ᾿] 4 ε , , 9 
γινώσκει TOV υἱον εἰ μή Ο γινώσκει, TIS ἐστιν ὁ υἱὸς 
A oQA 4 , 4 , 9 
πατήρ, οὐδὲ τὸν πατέρα ... Kal TIS ἐστιν ὁ πατὴρ 
9 =} 4 e \ ᾿] A . 
τις ἐπιγινώσκει εἰ μὴ ὁ viog εἰ μὴ (without γινώσκει) 
A eo De , ε Ἁ 
καὶ ᾧ ἐὰν βούληται ὁ υἱὸς 
τ 
ἀποκαλύψαι. 


St. Matt. xi. 16: The introduction is, as usual, 
more or less transformed by St. Luke. The inter- 
polation of of ἄνθρωποι is an improvement in style 
though it is somewhat pedantic, but καὶ τίνι εἰσὶν 
ὅμοιοι or rather καὶ τίνι ἐστὶν ὁμοία, may have come 
from Q. Parallismus membrorum is frequent in Ὁ; 
St. Matthew has often destroyed it from a desire for 
brevity. However, in what follows we can clearly 
discern St. Luke’s polishing hand, and that in spite 
of his λέγοντες. Καάλαίειν is substituted by St. Luke 
for κόπτεσθαι, he is fond of the former word (used 
by him eleven times, by St. Matthew only twice, in- 
cluding a quotation from the LXX). ᾿Ελήλυθεν 
(twice) for ἦλθεν is an improvement from the historical 
standpoint of St. Luke, but he has thus thrown doubt 
upon the saying as a genuine utterance of our Lord 
(see Wellhausen on this passage). άρτον and οἶνον 
are evidently interpolations, and moreover pedantic 
(for, as a matter of fact, “eating and drinking” 
signifies “eating bread and drinking wine”); like- 


INVESTIGATION OF THE TEXT 19 


wise λέγετε in St. Luke is a natural correction for 
the indefinite λέγουσιν in St. Matthew.—7avTwy must 
be regarded as belonging to the text of St. Luke, it 
is indeed a favourite word of his; but for this very 
reason we are justified in not assigning it to Ὁ. 
Téxvwy is the only intelligible reading; ἔργων is a 
variant which gives a sense most difficult to interpret, 
and which besides has only found its way into a part 
of the authorities for the text of St. Matthew. A 
thoughtless scribe was probably led by ἐδικαιώθη to 
think of ἔργα.----ἐγενήθησαν, like the addition of 
καθήμενοι, is a stylistic improvement (so also the τοῦ 
before ovpavov).—The two words κατέβησαν and κατε- 
βίβαζον occur in Ezek. xxxi. 16, 17; St. Luke pre- 
ferred the latter form, perhaps because of its rhythmic 
likeness to ὑψωθήσῃ. I have given the passage, 
xi. 25-27 (St. Luke x. 21-22), in the form which 
must be adopted on the evidence of the manuscripts. 
But judging from the exceptionally numerous and 
ancient quotations of this passage, we may conclude 
with great probability that, on account of the import- 
ance of its subject-matter, already at a very early date 
it had experienced serious correction, and, moreover, 
(1) that both in St. Matthew and St. Luke μου was 
originally wanting after πατρός; (2) that the original 
reading in St. Luke was ἔγνω (not γινώσκει). (3) 
that the words τὸν υἱὸν et μὴ ὁ πατήρ, οὐδέ (and τις 


1 Ἔγνω is found, for instance, in quotations by Justin. ‘‘ Apol.” i. 
63 (bis); ‘‘Iren.” i. 20, 3 (Markosians); ‘‘ Tertull. adv. Marc.” 
ii. 27; Euseb. “ Demonstr.” v. 1; Euseb. ‘‘Eclog.” i, 12; Euseb, 
“Hist, Eccl.” i. 2, 2; Huseb. “Eccl. Theol.” i. 12; “ Dial. de 
recta fide,” i. p. 44, ed. van de Sande ; Clem. ‘‘ Hom.” 17, 4; 18, 
4, 11, 13, 20. 


20 THE SAYINGS OF JESUS 


ἐπιγινώσκει) were perhaps originally wanting in St. 
Matthew (the corresponding words were certainly 
wanting in St. Luke).—éev αὐτῇ τῇ ὥρᾳ is a specifically 
Lukan expression (occurring with him six times, never 
in St. Matthew); on the other hand, ev ἐκείνῳ TH 
καιρῷ is only found in St. Matthew (twice again), 
and most probably comes from Ὁ.---ἰγαλλιάσατο τῷ 
πνεύματι τ. ay. is Lukan; this does not need to be 
proved for τ. πν. τ. ay.) while ἀγαλλιᾶν is used by 
him four times (gospel and Acts), and ἀγαλλίασις 
three times; it is wanting in St. Mark, and is found 
once in St. Matthew in the formal phrase: χαίρετε 
καὶ ἀγιαλλιᾶσθε.----ἀπέκρυψας is used by St. Luke 
for ἔκρυψας in accordance with his preference for 
compound words (vide supra on St. Matt. x. 26). 
Perhaps St. Matthew had already changed the very 
important aorist ἔγνω into the present (as if a time- 
less knowledge were intended), and this present was 
then also taken up into the text of St. Luke. 
᾿Επιγινώσκειν can scarcely be more original than 
γινώσκει. With St. Luke’s substitution of τίς ὁ 
πατήρ for τὸν πατέρα, compare St. Luke vy. 21; 
vil. 49; viii. 25; ix. 9. 

The text of St. Matthew is thus, apart from the 
present tense referred to, the more authentic. Except 
the omission in verse 16, the only alterations we may 
perhaps assign to this Evangelist are found in the 
solemn λέγω ὑμῖν, in the addition of ἀποκριθεὶς ὁ 
Ἰησοῦς to the introduction to verse 25, and in 
ἡμέρα κρίσεως. In place of the last expression the 
source had perhaps ἐν τῇ κρίσει (see St. Matt. xii. 
41, 42). 


INVESTIGATION 


St. Matt. xii. 27: καὶ 
εἰ ἐγὼ ἐν Βεελζεβοὺλ 

, 
ἐκβάλλω τὰ δαιμόνια, ot 
i ἃ 5 , 9 
viol ὑμῶν ἐν τίνι ἐκβαλ- 
λουσιν; διὰ τοῦτο αὐτοὶ 

δ Se e ~ 

κριταί ἔσονται ὑμῶν. (28) 
3 \ 7.9 , ee Gk τῇ 
εἰ δὲ ἐν πνεύματι θεοῦ ἐγὼ 
ἐκβάλλω τὰ δαιμόνια, ἄρα 
φ᾽ ὑμᾶς ἡ βασι- 
λεία τοῦ θεοῦ... . . (30) 


e ‘ nx ’ > a , 
O μὴ ὧν MET EMOU KAT 


ἔφθασεν ἐ 


Ψ ey 9 A © A , 
ἐμοῦ ἐστιν, καὶ ὁ μὴ συνα- 
) ᾽ os 
γῶν μετ᾽ ἐμου σκορ- 
LU AP cel 
mite. . . « (32) Kat ὃς 
oN x , Ν A 
εαν εἴπῃ λόγον κατὰ τοῦ 
“ Ὁ ἢ , 9 
υἱοῦ τοῦ ἀνθρώπου, ἀφεθή- 
Baw oi el δ᾽ nN Lg 
σεται αὐτῷ" ὃς ὁ᾽ ἂν εἴπῃ 
A fal , A 
κατὰ τοῦ πνεύματος TOU 
ς 3 τὶ , 
ἁγίου, ἀφεθήσεται 
a » ’ , ip 
αὐτῷ οὔτε ἐν τούτῳ TH 
1 


3 
ουκ 


bla Μ 93 “ Ls 
αἰῶνι οὔτε ἐν τῷ μελλοντι. 


ΟΕ ΤῊΝ TEXT 21 


Luke xi. 19, 20, 23; 
xii. 10. εἰ δὲ 


Up. Kp. ἐσ. 
δακτύλῳ (f. πνεύματι) 
ἐγὼ om. 


καὶ πᾶς 
ὃς ἐρεῖ εἰς (f. κατα) 


τῷ δὲ εἰς τ. GY. TY. 
, 
βλασφημήσαντι 


ὀὕτεις ς EA 
λοντι om. 


ἐγὼ is omitted by St. Luke (as in St. Matt. x. 16; 
xi. 10, and elsewhere), and the customary order of 
words is restored. The Lukan reading δακτύλῳ seems 
at first sight the more original, but this is scarcely 


$0. 


In spite of his liking for πνεῦμα, St. Luke 


substitutes the Biblical expression (Exod. viii. 19; 


1 The Beelzebub pericope stood in Q as well as in St. Mark, but 
the text printed above is all that we can with certainty assign to Q, 
besides isolated words from the introduction—éaipovriféuevros, κωφός, 
λαλεῖν, of ὄχλοι (perhaps also ἐξίσταντο), and ἐρημοῦται from St. 
Matthew verse 25 (St. Luke verse 17). 


22 THE SAYINGS OF JESUS 


xxxi. 18; Deut. ix. 


10; Ps. viii. 4); he takes no 


offence at certain anthropomorphic phrases which 


have Biblical authority—vide i. 51: 
i. 66: χεὶρ κυρίου; i. 8: ὅρκος τοῦ θεοῦ. 


βραχίων θεοῦ, 


The solemn 


concluding phrase of verse 32 (a verse which St. Luke 
has corrected in regard to style) may be an inter- 


polation by St. Matthew. 
St. Matt. xii. 98 : τότε 


ἀπεκρίθησαν αὐτῷ τινες 
τῶν γραμματέων καὶ Φαρι- 
σαίων λέγοντες" διδάσκαλε, 
θέλομεν ἀπὸ σοῦ σημεῖον 
ἰδεῖν" (39) ὁ δὲ ἀποκριθεὶς 
εἶπεν αὐτοῖς " γενεὰ πονηρὰ 
καὶ μοιχαλὶς σημεῖον ἐπι- 
ζητεῖ, καὶ σημεῖον οὐ δοθή- 
σεται αὐτῇ εἰ μὴ τὸ σημεῖον 
᾿Ιωνά τοῦ προφήτου. ... 
(41) ἄνδρες 


ἀναστήσονται ἐν τῇ κρίσει 


Νι νευεῖται 


μετὰ τῆς γενεᾶς ταύτης καὶ 
κατακρινοῦσιν αὐτήν, ὅτι 
᾿ " \ τὰ 
μετενόησαν εἰς τὸ κήρυγμα 
"Iwva, καὶ ἰδοὺ πλεῖον 
Ἴωνᾷ ὧδε. (42) βασίλισσα 
νότου ἐγερθήσεται ἐν τῇ 
; eras 
κρίσει μετὰ τῆς 
; ‘ 
ταύτης καὶ 
αὐτήν, 
περάτων τῆς γῆς ἀκοῦσαι 
τὴν σοφίαν Σολομῶνος, καὶ 
ἰδοὺ πλεῖον Σολομῶνος ὧδε. 


γενεᾶς 


f Os ~ 
ὅτι ἦλθεν ἐκ τῶν 


κατακρινεῖ 


St. Luke xi. 16, 29, 30, 
$2, G1. ἕτεροι δὲ πειρά- 
ζοντες σημεῖον ἐξ οὐρανοῦ 
ἐζήτουν παρ᾽ αὐτοῦ 


ἤρξατο λέγειν ἡ γενεὰ 
αὕτη γενεὰ πονηρά ἐστιν" 


σημεῖον ζητεῖ 


add. 


καθὼς γὰρ ἐγένετο Ἰωνᾶς 
τοῖς Ν᾿ νευείταις σημεῖον, 


om. τοῦ προφήτου 
οὕτως ἔσται καὶ O υἱὸς τοῦ 


ἀνθρώπου τῇ γενεᾷ ταύτη. 


τῶν ἀνδρῶν τ. γεν. ταύτ. 


ἢ 
αὐτοὺυς 


INVESTIGATION OF THE TEXT 23 


Either the verses 41 and 42 have been reversed in 
order by St. Luke, or what is more probable, verse 41 
was originally wanting in the Lukan text (vide infra). 

The introduction is transformed by both evan- 
gelists. The scribes and Pharisees, and the vocative 
διδάσκαλε, are peculiar to St. Matthew; the original 
introduction probably ran somewhat as follows :— 
(they said): θέλομεν ἀπὸ σοῦ σημεῖον ἰδεῖν. In St. 
Luke the correcting hand of the stylist is here 
clearly traced ; likewise ἡ γενεὰ κτλ. is a stylistic im- 
provement. Again, μοιχαλίς is elsewhere avoided by 
St. Luke as a vulgar word. Here also, contrary 
to his usual practice (see, however, St. Matt. xi. 27), 
he replaces the compound verb by the simple ζητεῖ, 
because he appreciates the special meaning of the 
compound.—The respectful affix τοῦ προφήτου, was 
most probably added by St. Matthew.—vov ἀνδρῶν 
is inserted by St. Luke; compare a similar insertion 
in St. Matt. xi. 16. 

The words καθὼς yap... τῇ γενεᾷ ταύτῃ in St. 
Luke are original (read, however, ὥσπερ for cabs) ; 
St. Matthew has replaced them, or rather interpreted 
them as oe to the Descent into Hades, by 
verse 40: ὥσπερ γὰρ ἣν ᾿Ιωνᾶς ἐν τῇ κοιλίᾳ τοῦ κήτους 
τρεῖς ἡμέρας καὶ τρεῖς νύκτας, οὕτως ἔσται ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ 
ἀνθρώπου ἐν τῇ καρδίᾳ τῆς γῆς τρεῖς ἡμέρας καὶ τρεῖς 
νύκτας, a clause which would never have been omitted 
by St. Luke if he had read it in his source. In Q 
the σημεῖον for the Ninevites lay simply in the preach- 
ing of Jonah (in disagreement with Wellhausen), that 
is, simply in the fact that a prophet had come to 
them.—The transposition of the two verses in St. 


24. THE SAYINGS OF JESUS 


Luke can only be due to an ancient error of a scribe, 
unless with codex D and Blass we regard St. Matthew 
verse 41 = St. Luke verse 32, as an interpolation in 
the Lukan text. This is the more probable, in that 
here τῆς γενεᾶς ταύτης is not changed into τῶν ἀνδρῶν 
τῆς γενεᾶς ταύτης. The verse, however, certainly 
stood in Q. The ἀποκριθείς of verse 39 is in the 
᾿ style of St. Matthew. 


St. Matt. xii. 43: ὅταν 
δὲ TO ἀκάθαρτον πνεῦμα 


St. Luke xi. 24-26. δέ 
om. 
ἐξέλθη ἀπὸ τοῦ ἀνθρώπου, 
διέρχεται δι ἀνύδρων τόπων 
ζητοῦν ἀνάπαυσιν, καὶ οὐχ μὴ 


εὑρίσκει. (44) τότε λέγει" 
εἰς τὸν οἶκόν μου ἐπισ- 
τρέψω ὅθεν ἐξῆλθον" καὶ 


ἐλθὸν εὑρίσκει σχολάζοντα 


e , , 
ευρίσκον λέγει 
ὑποστρ. εἰς τ. οἷ. μ. 


σχολάζοντα 


καὶ 
(45) τότε 


πορεύεται καὶ παραλαμ- 


[καὶ] 


κεκοσμημενον. 


σεσαρωμένον [καὶ] om. 


, ’ € a 3 a δ᾽. “" eo 
βάνει μεθ’ ἑαυτοῦ ἑπτὰ μεθ’ ἑαυτοῦ om. ἕτερα 


, , e , 
TVEVULATA TOVHPOTEDA εαὺυ- σι νευμ. ἑαυ- 


΄- Α ᾿] , a € ’ 
τοῦ καὶ εἰσελθόντα κατοι- τοῦ ἑπτα 
- 9 4 , \ 
κεῖ ἐκει, καὶ γίνεται Ta 
Va ~ 9 , 
ἔσχατα τοῦ ἀνθρώπου 


χείρονα τῶν πρώτων. 


Both μὴ and εὑρίσκον are improvements in style, so 
also the changed order of the words in verse 444, and 
the substitution of ὑποστρέψω for ἐπιστρέψω (ὑπο- 
στρέφειν is found in St. Luke [gospel and Acts] 
thirty-three times, never in St. Matthew and St. 


INVESTIGATION OF: THE TEXT 25 


Mark). The omission of σχολάζοντα is intelligible, 
not so its addition; the same is true of μεθ᾽ ἑαυτοῦ. 
Ἕτερος is found in St. Mark never, in St. Matthew 
nine times, in St. Luke’s gospel thirty-three times ; 
it has accordingly been added here. ‘Tore pr. per- 
haps belongs to St. Matthew. 


St. Matt. xiii. 16: ὑμῶν bs. batter. Ὁ SA. 
A ’ e 9 A e ~ \ 
δὲ μακάριοι οἱ ὀφθαλμοὶ ὑμῶν de om. 
. ἈΠ οι e 
ὅτ βλέπουσιν, καὶ Ta OTA οἱ βλέποντες ἃ βλέπετε 
€ ΄“ [72 9 ’ A A ’ ’ 
[ὑμῶν] OTL ἀκούουσιν. (17) καὶ τὰ. . . ἀκούουσιν OM. 
ἀμὴν γὰρ λέγω ὑμῖν, ὅτι ἀμὴν om. λέγω γὰρ 
πολλοὶ προφῆται καὶ [καιβασιλεῖς] οΥ καὶ δίκαιοι 
δίκαιοι ἐπεθύμησαν ἰδεῖν ἃ ἠθέλησαν 
βλέπετε καὶ οὐκ εἶδαν, καὶ ὑμεῖς βλέπ. [καὶ 
“»Ἢ 9 
ἀκοῦσαι ἃ ἀκούετε, καὶ OUK ἀκ, . . ἤκουσαν om.] 
ἤκουσαν. 


Here St. Luke begins with a stylistic correction 
and with a pedantic simplification of the thought. 
Blass, following some authorities, is right in omitting 
the last seven words of St. Matthew from the text of 
St. Luke. The “hearing” was already wanting in 
St. Luke’s parallel to verse 16; and if the concluding 
sentence of verse 17 had appeared in St. Luke it 
should have read ὑμεῖς ἀκούετε (cf the immediately 
preceding words of the Lukan text). Evidently St. 
Luke did not like it to be said that the prophets had 
not heard, only that they had not seen. ‘The emphatic 
ὑμεῖς is strange in St. Luke, seeing that this evangelist 
elsewhere is accustomed rather to omit the pleonastic 
personal pronouns of Q; but in this passage he had 
omitted the ὑμῶν at the beginning, and the ὑμεῖς is 


26 THE SAYINGS OF JESUS 


not pleonastic where he places 10.----ἀμήν may possibly 
belong to the source, but may also have been inserted 
by St. Matthew. Kai βασιλεῖς, in spite of its doubt- 
ful textual authority, must be regarded as belonging 
to the Lukan text; for its later addition cannot be 
easily explained, while it is explicable that it should 
have dropped out of the text. If, however, it stood 
in St. Luke, it stood also in Q, and the δίκαιοι of St. 
Matthew is a correction due to this evangelist, who 
has a special liking for δικαιοσύνη. ᾿Ηθέλησαν for 
ἐπεθύμησαν is an obvious stylistic improvement (ἐπι- 
θυμεῖν occurs only once elsewhere in St. Matthew). 
In Q, therefore, the saying ran essentially as it does 
in St. Matthew, with the exception of δίκαιοι (and 
perhaps of the ἀμήν). Note also the parallelism in 
St. Matthew. 


St. Matt Ril. eo: St. Luke xiii. 20, 21. 
ἄλλην παραβολὴν ἐλάλη- καὶ πάλιν εἶπεν. τίνι 
σεν αὐτοῖς" ὁμοία ἐστὶν ἡ ὁμοιώσω τ. Bac. T. θεοῦ; 
βασιλεία τῶν οὐρανῶν ὁμοία ἐστὶν ζύμῃ 
ζύμῃ, ἣν λαβοῦσα γυνὴ 
ἐνέκρυψεν εἰς ἀλεύρου σάτα 
τρία, ἕως οὗ ἐζυμώθη ὅλον. 

Here, apart from the introduction, all is identical. 
The Lukan introduction seems preferable, as St. Luke 
elsewhere is prone to transform rhetorical questions. 

Commentators rightly point out that most pro- 
bably the parable of the Mustard Seed, which is found 
in St. Matt. xiii. 31-2 =St. Luke xiii. 18-19, side 
by side with the parable of the Leaven, must also be 
assigned to Q, although it is also found in St. Mark 


INVESTIGATION OF THE TEXT Q7 


(iv. 30-32). Proof:—(1) The two parables are 
closely allied, and it is in itself improbable that 
they were handed down in tradition apart from one 
another; (2) they occur together in St. Matthew and 
St. Luke; (3) the parable of the Mustard Seed has in 
these gospels a form which varies from that of St. 
Mark; (4) this form is akin to that of the parable of 


the Leaven. 


Mark. 

\ » aA ε 
καὶ ἔλεγεν" πῶς ὁ- 
μοιώσωμεντὴν βασι- 
λείαν τοῦ θεοῦ ἢ ἐν 
τίνι αὐτὴν παρα- 

e 
βολῇ θῶμεν ; ὡς 
κόκκῳ σινάπεως, ὃς 
ὅταν σπαρῃ ἐπὶ τῆς 
γῆς, μικρότερον ὃν 
πάντων τῶν σπερ- 
μάτων τῶν ἐπὶ τῆς 
γῆς, καὶ ὅταν σπαρῇ, 
ἀναβαίνει καὶ γίνε- 
ται μεῖζον πάντων 

“ ’ \ 
τῶν λαχάνων, καὶ 

a / ’ὔ 
ποιεῖ κλάδους μεγά- 
λους, ὥστε δύνασθαι 
ὑπὸ τὴν σκιὰν αὐτοῦ 
τὰ πετεινὰ τοῦ οὐρα- 
νοῦ κατασκηνοῦν. 


Matthew. 

ἄλλην παραβολὴν 
ν᾿; > »- ᾽ὔ 
παρέθηκεν αὐτοῖς λέ- 
γων᾽ ὁμοία ἐστὶν 
ε γ᾿ lanl > 
ἡ βασιλεία τῶν ov- 
ρανῶν κόκκῳ σινά- 
a A 
mews, ὃν λαβὼν 
ἄνθρωπος ἔσπει- 
ρεν ἐν τῷ ἀγρῷ av- 
τοῦ: ὃ μικρότερον 
μέν ἐστιν πάντων 
τῶν σπερμάτων, ὅ- 
Ἁ » “ »Ἥ 
ταν δὲ αὐξη θῃ μεῖ- 
(ov τῶν λαχάνων 
ἐστὶν καὶ γίνεται 
δένδρον, ὥστε ἐλ- 
θεῖν τὰ πετεινὰ τοῦ 
οὐρανοῦ καὶ κατα- 
σκηνοῦν ἐν τοῖς 

’ὔὕ » “Ὁ 

κλάδοις αὐτοῦ. 


Luke. 
ἔλεγεν οὖν" τίνι ὁ. 
yg 5 A e 
μοία ἐστὶν ἡ βασι- 
λεία τοῦ θεοῦ, καὶ 
vA ε 
τίνι ὁμοιώσω αὐτήν; 
ε 
ὁμοία ἐστὶν κόκκῳ 
7 
σινάπεως, ὃν λα- 
A ΕΣ ” 
βὼν ἄνθρωπος é- 
βαλεν εἰς κῆπον ἕ- 
““ \ ΕΣ 
AUTON, kat ηὔξη- 
Gev Kat ἐγένετο 
εἰς δένδρον, καὶ τὰ 
πετεινὰ τοῦ οὐρα- 
νοῦ κατεσκήνωσεν ἐν 
rf ᾽ὔ 5 
τοῖς κλάδοις av- 
τοῦ. 


The text of Q accordingly ran somewhat as 
e / > A ς , ΄σ A 
ομοια εστιν ἢ βασιλεία του θεοῦ 


follows :----ἔλεγεν᾽ 


κόκκῳ σινάπεως, ὃν λαβὼν ἄνθρωπος ἔσπειρεν (scarcely 
ἔβαλεν) ὁ ἐν τῷ ἀγρῷ αὐτοῦ, καὶ ηὔξησεν καὶ γίνεται (cis) 
A 


δένδρον καὶ τὰ 
κλάδοις αὐτοῦ, 
duction in St. 


πετεινὰ TOU οὐρανοῦ κατασκηνοῖ ἐν τοῖς 
It also seems to me that the intro- 
Luke is original (τίνι ouota—avrny) ; 


28 THE SAYINGS OF JESUS 


St. Matthew abbreviates. It is noteworthy that St. 
Luke here shows himself to be independent of St. 
Mark, differing in this point from St. Matthew, and 
also follows a simpler construction than the latter 
evangelist, because he has kept closely to the source. 
On the other hand, the κῆπος of St. Luke is scarcely 
original (St. Matt. aypos—St. Mark γῆ), and the 
historic present of St. Matthew is to be preferred. 
The expression τὰ πετεινὰ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ, in com- 
bination with κατασκηνοῦν, is also found again in 
St. Matt. viii. 20=St. Luke ix. 58; τὰ πετεινὰ τ΄. 
οὐρανοῦ again in St. Matt. vi. 26 (St. Luke has here 
οἱ κόρακες). Koxkos σινάπεως also occurs again in St. 
Matt. xvii. 20=St. Luke xvii. 6; likewise αὐξάνειν, 
σπείρειν, and the pleonastic λαβών, are again found 
elsewhere in Q. 


St.Matt.xv.14: τυφλὸς St. Luke vi. 39: μήτι 
δὲ τυφλὸν ἐὰν odnyy, δύναται τυφλὸς τυφλὸν 
ἀμφότεροι εἰς βόθυνον ὁδηγεῖν; οὐχὶ ἀμφότεροι εἰς 
πεσοῦνται. βόθυνον ἐμπεσοῦνται ; 

The only difference is in the form, which is more 
full of life in St. Luke; but is his version to be re- 
garded as more original on that account? ’ Kav is. 
very frequent in Q, and St. Luke has very often 
changed it. St. Luke has replaced the simple 


πεσοῦνται by the compound, as is often the case. 


St. Matt:* ΠΟ: St. Luke xvii. 1: ἀνέν- 
9 , > .“ Χ ’ , 93 a ‘ 
ἀνάγκη ἐλθεῖν τὰ σκαν- δεκτόν ἐστιν τοῦ τὰ σκ. 
dada, πλὴν οὐαὶ τῷ ἀν- μὴ ἐλθ. [οὐαὶ δὲ] τῷ 
θρώπῳ δι’ οὗ τὸ σκάνδαλον ἀνθρώπῳ om. τὸ σκαν- 
ἔρχεται. δαλον om. 


INVESTIGATION OF THE TEXT 29 


The first half of the saying is certainly most 
original in the version of St. Matthew (avayxy is 
found only here in this gospel, while it occurs a few 
times in St. Luke). Also the second half, because 
of the parallelism, is preferable in the form of St. 


Matthew. 

A ee oN A 
πλὴν oval OF οὐαὶ δέ. 

ΠΕ Matt. xxii. 12: 
ef A ε ’ὔ e A 
ὅστις de ὑψώσει ἑαυτὸν 

A 
ταπεινωθήσεται, καὶ ὅστις 
7 e A « , 
ταπεινώσει ἑαυτὸν ὑνψγωθή- 
σεται. 


It is uncertain whether St. Luke wrote 


St. Luke xiy. 11. 
“ ΡΜ - ~ 
πᾶς ὁ ὑψῶν 
ὁ ταπεινῶν 


Transformation of the finite verb into the parti- 
ciple is frequent in St. Luke, likewise the substitution 


of πᾶς for ὅς and ὅστις. 


St. Matt. xxiii. 37: 
‘Tepovoadnyu. ἹἹερουσαλήμ, 
ε ει 4) A 
ἡ ἀποκτείνουσα τοὺς προ- 
φήτας καὶ λιθοβολοῦσα 
τοὺς ἀπεσταλμένους πρὸς 
αὐτήν, ποσάκις ἠθέλησα ἐπι- 
συναγαγεῖν τὰ τέκνα σου, 
ὃν τρόπον ὄρνις ἐπισυνάγει 
τὰ νοσσία [αὐτῆς] ὑπὸ τὰς 
πτέρυγας, καὶ οὐκ ἠθελή- 
σατε. (98) ἰδοὺ ἀφίεται 
eon ες > ἐς ~ + 
ὑμῖν ὁ οἶκος ὑμῶν ἔρημος. 
(99) λέγω γὰρ ὑμῖν, οὐ μή 
με ἴδητε ἀπ᾽ ἄρτι ἕως ἂν εἴ- 
πητε" εὐλογημένος ὁ ἐρχό- 

πρυον , 
μενος ἐν ὀνόματι κυρίου. 


St. Luke xiii. 34, 35. 


ἐπι- 
συνάξαι 
ἐπισυνάγει OM. 
τὴν ἑαυτῆς νοσσιὰν 


ἔρημος om. 

yap om. [δὲ ?] 
ἴδητέ με 
ἕως [ἂν ἥξῃ ὅτε] 


- ΓΝ ἡ 
αἸ αρτίι om. 


30 THE SAYINGS OF JESUS 


Most of the variants are without significance, and 
yet even here the text of St. Matthew shows itself to 
be the more ancient. The reading ἕως ἂν ἥξῃ (vel 
ἕως ἥξει) ὅτε is very peculiar, and little germane to 
the style of St. Luke. If we could accept Well- 
hausen’s conjecture that ὅτε represents the Aramaic 
relative (is cui), and that the real subject is the 
Messiah, then this reading would necessarily be the 
more original; but the thought: “Ye will not see 
Me until He comes, to whom ye shall say, Blessed is 
He that cometh, &c.,” is too amazingly circumstantial. 
—In reference to ἄρτι, it is to be noted that this word 
is found in the gospels only in St. Matthew and St. John 
(ἀπ᾿ ἄρτι again in St. Matt. xxvi. 29, 64, and three times 
in St. John). St. Luke has omitted this vulgar and, 
moreover, pleonastic expression ; in the parallel passage 
to St. Matt. xxvi. 29, he uses ἀπὸ τοῦ νῦν (a phrase 
which occurs again four times in the gospel and once 
in the Acts)—On ἀφίεται ἔρημος Wellhausen re- 
marks: “'The destruction of the city is not something 
in the future, it is already destroyed and ts to remain 
in ruins. . . . The later commentators shut their eyes 
and think of all sorts of things.” And again on St. 
Luke xiii. 34, 35: “The omission of ἔρημος is very 
remarkable.” I cannot see why ἀφίεται ἔρημος can-_ 
not be a prophetic future; and that St. Luke omitted 
ἔρημος (the word, moreover, is not absolutely certain in 
the text of St. Matthew) because Jerusalem rose again 
from its ruins, is to me questionable. The saying in 
St. Matthew is only a reproduction of the prophecy of 
Jeremiah (xxii. 5): εἰς ἐρήμωσιν ἔσται ὁ οἶκος οὗτος. 


ε 


But the reproduction—agierat ὑμῖν ὁ οἶκος ὑμῶν 


INVESTIGATION 


épyuos—did not sound quite logical, for the idea of 
destruction has to be supplied, and also was not 
good Greek. St. Luke improved this version by 
the omission of ἔρημος. St. Matthew read: « Your 
temple will to your disadvantage be left in a con- 
dition of desolation”; St. Luke corrected: “ Your 
temple will to your disadvantage be delivered up 
[left].” The passive ἀφίεσθαι has now the same sense 
as in St. Matt. xxiv. 40 ἢ = St. Luke xvii. 34 f., where 
it stands in contrast to παραλαμβανεσθαι.---Α5 to the 
question whether this saying is our Lord’s, or is a quota- 
tion used by Him (or put into His mouth), vide infra. 


OF .THE TEXT 9] 


st. Matt. xxiv. 43: 
> A A ’ὔ; Ψ 
Exeivo δὲ γινώσκετε, ὅτι 
- + e ᾿] ’ 
εἰ ἤδει ὁ οἰκοδεσπότης 
ποίᾳ φυλακῇ ὁ κλέπτης 
ἔρχεται, ἐγρηγόρησεν ἂν 
καὶ οὐκ ἂν εἴασεν / διορυχθῆ- 
ναι τὴν οἰκίαν αὐτοῦ. (44) 
NV A la » a , 
Ola τοῦτο Kal ὑμεῖς γίνεσθε 
ἕτοιμοι, ὅτι ἣ οὐ δοκεῖτε 
” e e\ 5. ἘΝ ’ 
ὥρᾳ ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου 
"» je 9 A 
ἔρχεται. (45) τις apa ἐστιν 
e Ἁ ~ 4A , 
ὁ πιστὸς δοῦλος Kal φρό- 
ὃν κατέστησεν ὁ 


νιμος, 
, Ae. ~ Ε] , 
κυρίος ἘΠῚ THS OlKETELAG 
9 ΄“-Ἥ al ~ " an 
αὐτου TOU δοῦναι αὐυτοις 


τὴν τροφὴν € ἐν καιρῷ; (46) 

μακάριος ὁ δοῦλος ἐ ἐκεῖνος, 

ὃν ἐλθὼν ὁ κύριος αὐτοῦ εὑ- 
, Lud ge 

ρήσει οὕτως ποιοῦντα. (47) 

ἀμὴν λέγω ὑμῖν ὅτι ἐπὶ 


St. Luke xii. 
42. 40. 


39, 40, 


τοῦτο (f. ἐκεῖνο) 


ὥρᾳ (f. φυλακῇ) 
ἐγρηγόρησεν αν 
καὶ om. οὐκ ἂν ἀφῆκεν 
τὸν οἶκον 
διὰ τοῦτο om. 
ὥρᾳ οὐ δοκεῖτε (the whole 
ver. 44 is perhaps an inter- 
polation from St. Matt.) 
οἰκονόμος (f. δοῦλος) 
καταστήσει 
θεραπείας (f. οἰκετείας) 
διδόναι αὐτοῖς om. 
ἐν καιρῷ τὸ σιτομέτριον 


ποιοῦντα οὕτως 
ἀληθῶς (f. ἀμήν) 


32 THE SAYINGS OF JESUS 


» a «ες , 
πᾶσιν τοῖς ὑπαρχουσιν 
9 A >) , 
αὐτοῦ καταστήσει GauUTOY. 


(48) ἐὰν δὲ εἴπῃ ὁ κακὸς κακὸς OM. 
δοῦλος ἐκεῖνος ἐν τῇ καρδίᾳ 

αὐτοῦ" (9) χρονίζει μου ὁ κύρ. 
ὁ κύριος, καὶ ἄρξηται τύπ- μου ἔρχεσθαι (add. 


τειν TOUS συνδούλους αὐτοῦ, post κύριος) τοὺς παῖδας 
ἐσθίῃ δὲ καὶ πίνῃ μετὰ τῶν καὶ τὰς παιδίσκας (f. τ. 
μεθυόντων, (80) ἥξει ὁ συνδούλ. αὐτ.). ἐσθίειν τε 
κύριος τοῦ δούλου ἐκείνου καὶ πίνειν καὶ μεθύσκεσθαι 
ἐν ἡμέρᾳ ἢ οὐ προσδοκᾷ 
καὶ ἐν ὥρᾳ ἣ οὐ γινώσκει, 
(51) καὶ διχοτομήσει αὐτὸν 

Sagat woe ey Ge : 
καὶ TO μέρος αὐτοῦ μετὰ 
τῶν ὑποκριτῶν θήσει. ἀπίστων (f. ὑποκριτῶν). 


This pericope is particularly instructive in that it 
helps us to recognise the various motives which guided 
St. Luke in his correction of the text handed down to 
him; for almost everywhere the text of St. Matthew, 
when contrasted with that of St. Luke, shows itself 
the more original. On linguistic grounds, St. Luke 
replaces ἐκεῖνο by τοῦτο, δοῦναι by διδόναι (as in the 
Lord’s Prayer), ἀμήν by ἀληθῶς (a proof, moreover, that 
the ἀμήν here—and thus most probably elsewhere, 
where it is wanting in St. Luke—stood in the source ; 
compare also the vai which is found in St. Luke). 
On the same grounds he replaces the forms ἐσθίη, 
πίνῃ, by the infinitive (at the same time transforming 
the descriptive phrase μετὰ των μεθυόντων); he im- 
proves the order of the words (the unnecessarily 
emphatic positions of μου and ἐν καιρῷ, and οὕτως in 


INVESTIGATION OF THE TEXT 958 


too unemphatic a position); he drops the superfluous 
words ἐγρηγόρησεν ἂν καί, διὰ τοῦτο, αὐτοῖς, and 
κακός, on the other hand he adds ἔρχεσθαι to 
χρονίζει, because he wishes to express the principal 
verb which is implied in St. Matthew. He replaces 
οἰκίαν by οἶκος, which is in fact the more appropriate 
word. He takes offence at the vulgar οἰκετεία, and 
replaces it by the classical θεραπεία. He changes the 
δοῦλος, who indeed even in St. Matthew is not an 
ordinary slave but both slave and overseer, into an 
οἰκονόμος, and accordingly the σύνδουλοι must also be 
transformed (this word is never found in St. Luke, 
while it occurs again four times in St. Matt. xviii. 
28-33). He replaces ὑποκριταί by ἄπιστοι; a word 
which was more current with his readers (ὑποκριταί 
are much less frequently met with in this gospel 
than in St. Matthew) ; the colourless τροφή gives 
place to σιτομέτριον, certainly a technical term which 
moreover is not met with elsewhere—qvAaxy to dpa, 
because the thief does not only come during the 
φυλακή, but at any time. Only in the case of the 
substitution of ἀφῆκεν for εἴασεν do I find difficulty 
in conjecturing St. Luke’s reason for the change; 
εἴασεν is, however, certainly the original reading, for 
ἐᾷν is only found here in St. Matthew, while it often 
occurs in St. Luke (ten times in the gospel and Acts). 
Finally, St. Luke has interpolated between verses 44 
and 45 of St. Matthew the words: Hizey δὲ ὁ Πέτρος" 
κύριε, πρὸς ἡμᾶς τὴν παραβολὴν ταύτην λέγεις ἢ καὶ 
πρὸς πάντας; καὶ εἶπεν ὁ κύριος. ‘They interrupt the 
connection of the passage, which shows here only a 
seeming hiatus, and they answer to the style and 
σ 


94 THE SAYINGS OF JESUS 


manner of St. Luke, who lays great weight upon the 
definite address of the discourses. Also καταστήσει 
(instead of κατέστησεν) is intended to be an improve- 
ment; it however stands in a certain connection with 
the interpolated question of St. Peter. 

The verse in St. Luke corresponding to St. Matthew, 
verse 44, is perhaps an interpolation from St. Matthew. 
If so, we cannot be sure that it stood in Q. 


St. Matt. xxv. 29: τῷ St. Luke xix. 26: 
+ \ , A 9 
ἔχοντι [παντὶ] δοθήσεται παντὶ τ. ex. 
καὶ περισσευθήσεται" τοῦ καὶ περισσ. OM. ἀπὸ δὲ τοῦ 
δὲ μὴ ἔχοντος καὶ ὃ ἔχει 
ἀρθήσεται ἀπ᾽ αὐτοῦ. ἀπ᾽ αὐτοῦ om. 


Here, in all three places, it is plain that St. Luke 
has improved the text linguistically; as regards the 
sense, περισσευθήσεται was superfluous. 


There are only about thirty-four instances in which 
we have found sometimes strong, sometimes weak, 
grounds for conjecturing that the text of St. Matthew 
is secondary to that of St. Luke, but these instances 
are still further reduced in number when we pass 
judgment upon them in combination. It is, namely, 
(1) by no means certain that the ἀμήν of viii. 10, 
x. 15, xi. 11, and xiii. 17, is an interpolation of St. 
Matthew’s, for in St. Matt. xxiv. 47 St. Luke repre- 
sents it by ἀληθῶς (and in St. Matt. xxiii. 36 by vad); 
it may therefore very well have also occurred in Q in 
the other passages, and St. Luke may have left it un- 
translated, seeing that he avoids un-Hellenic words. 
The same may be said (2) of the solemn λέγω ὑμῖν of 


INVESTIGATION OF THE TEXT 88 


xi. 22; St. Luke often gives it in his text of Q (vide - 
St. Luke x. 12, 24; xi. 51; xv. 7, &c.); it thus stood 
in Ὁ, and it is therefore possible that it was also 
omitted by St. Luke here and there. (8) It cannot 
be proved that St. Matthew in iii. 9 replaced ἄρξησθε 
by δόξητε, and it is quite improbable that he inserted 
εἰς μετάνοιαν in iii. 11. 

In regard to the remaining instances, thirteen affect 
the introductwons to the discourses (not the discourses 
themselves), or contain insignificant stylistic altera- 
tions. The discourse, St. Matt. viii. 19 fi, is intro- 
duced by the words: καὶ προσελθὼν εἷς γραμματεύς, 
and in the same passage (verse 21) τῶν μαθητῶν is 
added to ἕτερος, together with the addition of the 
vocatives διδάσκαλε, κύρι. Here also (verse 22), and 
in xi. 4, 7, ὁ Ijcots is inserted, and in xi. 25 ἀποκριθεὶς 
ὁ ᾿Ιησοῦς. The discourse of xii. 38 ff. is introduced 
by the words: τότε ἀπεκρίθησαν αὐτῷ τινες τῶν 
γραμματέων καὶ Φαρισαίων λέγοντες, and the dis- 
course of xii. 22 ff. by τότε προσηνέχθη αὐτῷ δαιμονι- 
ζόμενος ; lastly, the parable of xiii. 33 by the words 
ἄλλην παραβολὴν ἐλάλησεν αὐτοῖς. Tore (a favourite 
particle with St. Matthew, occurring in his gospel 
ninety times, in St. Mark six times, in St. Luke four- 
teen times) is inserted in ix. 37, and perhaps in xii. 44. 
One cannot be quite certain whether in St. Matt. xi. 16 
the words καὶ τίνι εἰσὶν ὅμοιοι are omitted, or whether 
St. Luke has added them. ‘The former alternative is 
probable, because also in the case of St. Matt. xiii. 33, 
St. Luke exceeds St. Matthew in reading the words: 


1 It is questionable whether in St. Matt. ix. 37 rots μαθηταῖς αὐτοῦ 
is an interpolation ; it may also be original. 


36 THE SAYINGS OF JESUS 


τίνι ὁμοιώσω τὴν βασιλείαν τοῦ θεοῦ; though he else- 
where shows a dislike for rhetorical questions. In 
xii. 99 τοῦ προφητοῦ is added to ᾿Ιωνᾶ, and in xii. 22 
the dumb man is both blind and dumb—-similar 
amplifications occur in St. Matthew’s treatment of 
the Markan text. 

The group that is now left (about fifteen instances) 
comprise changes made in the actual fabric of the 
discourses themselves. Here we must at once agree 
that St. Matthew has a distinct preference for the 
expression “your (the) Heavenly Father,” or for the 
epithet “Heavenly,” and for the substitution of 
«“ Heaven” for “God,” of which preference the 
exciting cause does not seem to have been found in 
Q. Thus in vi. 26, 6 πατὴρ ὑμῶν ὁ οὐράνιος is sub- 
stituted for ὁ θεός, in vi. 32, ὁ οὐράνιος is added to 
ὁ πατὴρ ὑμῶν, in vii. 11, ὁ πατὴρ ὑμῶν ὁ ἐν τοῖς 
οὐρανοῖς is written instead of ὁ πατὴρ ὁ ἐξ οὐρανοῦ, 
and in xi. 11, 7. Bao. τῶν οὐρανῶν instead of τ. Bac. 
τ. θεοῦ. It is evident that in these cases the text of 
this gospel is secondary, seeing that these terms also 
appear in passages which are not dependent upon Q. 
Again, this evangelist has also a preference for the 
conception δίκαιος (δικαιοσύνη). In vi. 33, καὶ τὴν 
δικαιοσύνην is certainly an addition—and a by no 
means unimportant one !—and in xiii. 17, the βασιλεῖς 
are certainly more original than the δίκαιοι. One 
may perhaps discern imitation of sacred Biblical 
phraseology in vi. 26 (τὰ πετεινὰ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ for 
τοῦς κόρακας)» in vi. 28 (τὰ κρίνα τοῦ ἀγροῦ for τὰ 
κρίνα), and in vi. 30 (τὸν χόρτον τοῦ ἀγροῦ for ἐν 
ἀγρῷ τὸν χόρτον), yet here we cannot be certain. 


INVESTIGATION OF THE TEXT 5957 


The expression of St. Luke (xii. 30) τὰ ἔθνη τοῦ 
κόσμου (in St. Matt. vi. 32, τοῦ κόσμου is wanting), 
which does not occur elsewhere in the New Testament 
nor in the LXX, may be original (an Aramaic 
phrase); St. Matthew may have omitted τοῦ κόσμου 
as superfluous... There remain a few passages of 
greater weight and significance. In vi. 33 St. 
Matthew has inserted πρῶτον, and has thus limited 
the exclusiveness of the command to seek after the 
kingdom of God; in vii. 12 he has added to the 
Golden Rule the words: οὗτος yap ἐστιν ὁ νόμος καὶ 
ot προφῆται. He has given a complete twist to the 
passage concerning Jonah, in that he has applied to 
the simile a new tertium comparationis (Jonah’s three 
days’ abode in the whale’s belly), and thus has 
interpreted it of our Lord’s abode in Hades; the 
present tense in xi. 27 is probably due to him, as 
well as the conclusion of xii. 32. 

On the whole it may be said St. Matthew has 
treated the discourses with great respect, and has 
edited them in a very conservative spirit. Seeing 
that the more important corrections are so few in 
number, it is absurd to attempt to deduce from them 
the permanent motives which guided the evangelist 
in making them. The alteration in the terms for 
“God,” or for “the Kingdom,” was no correction in 
his eyes; still less perhaps the summary phrase, 
«This is the Law and the Prophets.” Thus, there 
remain only the addition of « Righteousness” and 
«ς πρῶτον," and the transformation of the “Sign of 


1 One cannot be sure of Q’s term for the Last Day in St. Matt. 
x, 15 and xi, 22 (i.e. whether ἡ ἡμέρα κρίσεως is original or not). 


38 THE SAYINGS OF JESUS 


Jonah,” which transformation may have been found 
by him already carried out in his exemplar of Q. 


In contrast with these few instances of correction 
on the part of St. Matthew, we reckon nearly one 
hundred and fifty instances of correction by St. Luke ; 
but these are all, with very few exceptions, of a stylistic 
character. St. Luke’s interest in style manifests itself 
in detail in the most varied directions, and yet it 
remains consistent with itself. Let us here give a 
summary of its most important manifestations :— 

1. He replaces vulgar expressions by those that 
are more refined, and substitutes more appropriate 
for inappropriate words. 

2. He replaces simple by compound verbs. 

3. He replaces conjunctions by the relative. 

4. He replaces καί with the finite verb by dé (or 
by the participle, or by a final sentence); but, on the 
other hand, he also inserts καί when it makes the 
passage run more smoothly. 

5. He improves the arrangement of the words. 

6. He makes a more logical use of tenses and 
numbers, and is fond of participial constructions. 

7. He prunes away superfluous pronouns which _ 
easily crept into translations from Semitic languages, 
and, moreover, into the language of the common 
people. 

8. He varies the monotonous use of ἐάν by other 
constructions (ὅστις ἄν by πᾶς). 

9. He corrects too great circumstantiality of 
language ; but, on the other hand, he explains obscure 
expressions. 


INVESTIGATION OF THE TEXT 99 


10. He reduces the number of rhetorical questions. 

11. He introduces the construction of ἐγένετο 
with the gen. abs. followed by a finite verb. 

12. He multiplies the instances where ἦν is used 
in construction with the participle. 

Beyond these stylistic motives which have led him 
to make corrections,’ no definite bias of any kind 
can be discovered in his treatment of the sections 
which we have considered — with one exception, 
namely, the introduction of the Holy Spirit into 
the passage parallel to St. Matt. vii. 11. The 
omission of the clothing in the passage parallel to 
St. Matt. vi. 28, 31, and the corresponding recasting 
of the words, is a somewhat drastic change, but in 
so far as it displays bias, the bias is very innocent. 
When he replaces “bread and stone” by “egg and 
scorpion,” he may be dependent upon another tradi- 
tional form of the saying which was perhaps 
influenced by a current proverb (vide supra on St. 
Matt. vii. 9). He has indulged in a fairly long 
interpolation in the words: ov δὲ ἀπελθὼν διάγγελλε 
τὴν βασιλείαν Tov θεοῦ (ix. 60, cf. St. Matt. viii. 22); 
but the interpolation is, so to speak, neutral in char- 
acter. Again, in order to give greater liveliness of 
form, he interpolates into the discourse of St. Matt. 
xxiv. 43 ff., after verse 44, the words: εἶπεν δὲ ὁ 
Πέτρος" κύριε πρὸς ἡμᾶς τὴν παραβολὴν ταύτην 
λέγεις ἢ καὶ πρὸς πάντας; καὶ εἶπεν ὁ κύριος. Lastly, 
he has ventured to give some sort of a para- 
phrase of the saying of St. Matt. xi. 12, which was 


1 Also the omission of ἔρημος is probably to be explained from 
motives of style (vide supra on St. Matt. xxiii. 38). 


40 THE SAYINGS OF JESUS 


evidently unintelligible even to himself, in his balder 
version: ἀπὸ τότε ἡ βασιλεία τοῦ θεοῦ εὐαγγελίζεται; 
καὶ πᾶς εἰς ἀυτὴν βιάζεται. 

If we neglect these few instances, in which indeed 
it is possible that another text of Q than that used 
by St. Matthew may have lain before St. Luke, then 
we may say that in regard to the rest of the text 
(that is, the text as a whole), one and the same teat lies 
behind St. Luke and St. Matthew. It further follows 
that the connection between these two gospels, of 
which neither is the source of the other, must be a 
literary connection—1.e. the dependence of each upon 
common oral sources is not a sufficient explanation. 

Having gained this firm standpoint, we now pro- 
ceed to the investigation of those sections common 
to St. Matthew and St. Luke in which the differences 
are greater. 


II 
St. Matt. iii. 7%: ἰδὼν St. Luke iii. 75: ἔλεγεν 


δὲ πολλοὺς τῶν Φαρισαίων δὲ [οὖν P| Tots ἐκπορευο-- 

4 ‘g 93 , Ε) A 
καὶ Σαδδουκαίων ἐρχο- μένοις ὄχλοις βαπτισθῆναι 
μένους ἐπὶ τὸ βάπτισμα ὑπ᾽ [ἐνώπιον] αὐτοῦ. 
εἶπεν αὐτοῖς" 


It is no longer possible to determine exactly 
what stood in Q, certainly not “the Pharisees and 
Sadducees” (they are characteristic of St. Matthew), 
nor the imperfect ἔλεγεν (for it is characteristic of 
St. Luke), nor the infinitive βαπτισθῆναι, which is 
likewise characteristic of St. Luke; perhaps, how- 


INVESTIGATION OF THE TEXT 41 


ever, Q had πολλοί with the genitive, for it is never 
found elsewhere in St. Matthew (see, however, St. 
Luke i. 16),1 probably also the word avrois. The 
source may have run somewhat in this way: ἰδὼν 
πολλοὺς. . . ἐρχομένους ἐπὶ τὸ βάπτισμα εἶπεν 
αὐτοῖς. From St. Matthew verse 5 = St. Luke 
verse 3, it follows that πᾶσα ἡ περίχωρος τοῦ ᾿Ιορδάνου 


stood in Q. 


St. Matt. iv. 1 f: Tore 
ὁ ᾿Ιησοῦς ἀνήχθη εἰς 
τὴν ἔρημον ὑπὸ τοῦ 
πνεύματος πειρασθῆναι 
ὑπὸ τοῦ διαβόλου, (2) 
καὶ νηστεύσας ἡμέρας 
μ' καὶ νύκτας μ΄ ὕστερον 
ἐπείνασεν, 


(3) καὶ προσελθὼν ὁ 
πειράζων εἶπεν αὐτῷ" εἰ 
υἱὸς εἶ τοῦ θεοῦ, 
“ ε , @ yx 
iva οἱ λίθοι οὕτοιαρτοι 
γένωνται. (4) ὁ δὲ 
° A > , 
ἀποκριθεὶς εἶπεν: γέ- 
γραπται' οὐκ ἐπ᾽ ἄρτῳ 
μόνῳ ζήσεται ὁ 
θρωπος, ἀλλ’ ἐπὶ παντὶ 


εἰπὲ 


x 
αν- 


St. Luke iv. 1-13. 
"Incovs de πλήρης πνεύ- 
ματος aryiov ὑπέστρεψεν 
ἀπὸ τοῦ ᾿Ιορδάνου, καὶ 
ἤγετο ἐν τῷ πνεύματι 
ἐν τῇ ἐρήμῳ ἡμέρας μ' 
πειραζόμενος ὑπὸ τοῦ 
διαβόλου. καὶ οὐκ ἔφα- 
γεν οὐδὲν ἐν ταῖς ἡμέραις 


> , ‘ 

ἐκείναις, Kal συντελεσ- 
~ 3 A 3 , 

θεισῶν αὐτῶν ἐπεί- 

νασεν. 


εἶπεν δὲ αὐτῷ ὁ διαβο- 
λος" εἰ υἱὸς εἶ τοῦ θεοῦ, 
εἰπὲ τῷ λίθῳ τούτῳ ἵνα 
γένηται ἄρτος. 

καὶ ἀπεκρίθη πρὸς αὐτὸν 
ὁ ᾿Ιησοῦς᾽ γέγραπται 
ὅτι οὐκ ἐπ’ ἄρτῳ μόνῳ 
ζήσεται ὁ ἄνθρωπος. 


1 Yet it is also possible that ὄχλοι occurred in Q, since the word 
is also found elsewhere in that source. 


42 THE SAYINGS OF JESUS 


er 3 ’ Ἁ 
ῥήματι (ἐκπορευομένῳ διὰ 
στόματος) θεοῦ. 

(5) τότε παραλαμβάνει 

9 \ e U ς 4 
αὐτὸν ὁ διάβολος εἰς THY 
€ A ’ Ἁ ᾿ 
ἁγίαν πόλιν, Kal ἐστη- 
σεν αὐτὸν ἐπὶ τὸ πτερύ- 
γιον τοῦ ἱεροῦ, (6) καὶ 
λέγει αὐτῷ" εἰ 
τοῦ θεοῦ, βάλε σεαυτὸν 
κάτω" γέγραπται γὰρ 
ὅτι τοῖς ἀγγέλοις av- 


τοῦ ἐντελεῖται περὶ 
“" 4 3 Α “ 

σοῦ, καὶ ἐπὶ χειρῶν 

" lal , 

ἀροῦσιν σε, μή ποτε 


προσκόψης πρὸς λίθον 
τὸν πόδα σου. (7) ἔφη 

- eeattg aN eae A ἢ 
αὐτῳ oO Ἰησοῦς" πάλιν 
γέγραπται" 
ράσεις κύριον τὸν θεόν 
σου. 

(8) πάλιν παραλαμβάνει 
>) Ἁ « ’ -" 
αὐτὸν ὁ διάβολος εἰς 
ὄρος ὑψηλὸν λίαν, καὶ 
δείκνυσιν αὐτῷ πάσας 
τὰς βασιλείας τοῦ κόσ- 


ς᾽ 9 
OUK €KT7 El- 


4 A / 
μον Kat τὴν δόξαν 
9 ΄΄“ἤ 4 5 
αὐτῶν, (9) καὶ εἶπεν 


αὐτῷ" ταῦτά σοι πάντα 
δώσω. ἐὰν πεσὼν προσ- 
κυνήσῃς μοι. (10) τότε 
λέγει αὐτῷ ὁ Ἰησοῦς" 
ὕπαγε, σατανᾶ: γέγραπ- 


eX > 
vlog εἰ 


The verses 5—7 come- 
in St. Luke after 8~9. 


ox A ς εὖ 9 
γᾶγεν δὲ QuTOV εἰς 


‘I ερουσαλήμ. What fol- 


lows is identical, yet om. 
αὐτόν. εἶπεν (f. λέγει) 


ἐντεῦθεν [κάτω] 


περὶ 
σοῦ τοῦ διαφυλάξαι σε, 
καὶ ὅτι ἐπὶ 


Α ᾽ 4 e ; “ 
καὶ ἀποκριθεὶς ὃ ᾿Ιησοῦς 
> ? Sree, " 
εἶπεν GUTH (OTL) εἴρηται 


Ά Id A > ‘ € 
καὶ ἀναγαγὼν αὐτὸν (0 
διαβ. λίαν om.) 

καὶ om. 

" “A 3 , 
ἔδειξεν. τῆς οἰκουμένης 
( τ. KOOM.), καὶ τ. δόξαν 
om, ἐν στιγμῷ 
A 
χρόνου ad perhaps πρὸς 
αὐτὸν, add. ὁ διάβολος, 

\ , A 9 ’ 
σοὶ δώσω τὴν ἐξουσίαν 
ταύτην ἅπασαν [καὶ τὴν 


αὐτῶν 


δόξαν αὐτῶν], ὅτι ἐμοὶ 
παραδέδοται καὶ ᾧ ἂν θέλω 


INVESTIGATION 


Tat γάρ" κύριον τὸν 
θεόν σου προσκυνήσεις 
καὶ αὐτῷ μόνῳ λατρεύ- 
σεις. 


’ 9 , 93 

(11) τότε ἀφίησιν av- 

ἣν « LA ἮΓΟΝ ‘ 

τὸν ὁ διάβολος, καὶ ἰδοὺ 

» ~ A 

ἄγγελοι προσῆλθον καὶ 
’ δ, “ 
διηκόνουν αὐτῷ. 


OF THE TEXT 43 


δίδωμι αὐτήν: σὺ οὖν ἐὰν 
προσκυνήσῃς 
’ mt Sa PS taer \ 
ἐμοῦ, ἔσται σοῦ πᾶσα. καὶ 
ἀποκριθες ὁ 
εἶπεν αὐτῷ: What fol- 
lows is identical, but 
without ὕπαγε, σατανᾶ 
and. γάρ. 

συντελέσας πάντα 
πειρασμὸν ὁ διάβολος 
Say ΑΣΑ πο τα ΤΠ 
ἀπέστη ἀπ᾽ αὐτοῦ ἄχρι 
καιροῦ. 


ae 
EVWTLOYV 


᾿Ι]ησοῦς 


Q 
Και 


In the above passage I have indicated by spaced 
type all the words which are common, or which 
closely correspond to one another, in the two gospels. 
It is at once seen that we have here an essentially 
identical text. The chief difference is that in St. 
Luke the third temptation has become the second. 
It is in favour of the order of St. Matthew that 
the temptation on the mountain is undoubtedly the 
chief temptation ; here it is no longer a question 
of the Divine Sonship being put to the test, but 
of its renunciation: the Son of God is tempted 
to enter into the service of Satan. It is in favour 
of St. Luke’s order, that according to it the scene 
of the temptations changes only at the last tempta- 
tion, that the devil makes his final assault with a 
temptation actually based upon the words of Scrip- 
ture, and that our Lord’s answer forbids further 
temptation. It is not possible to give a certain de- 
cision on the point, but probability is on the side 


44 THE SAYINGS OF JESUS 


of the order of St. Matthew. Nothing can be built 
upon the ὕπαγε Σατανᾶ of St. Matthew, for these 
words can scarcely be original. If they were, what 
reason could St. Luke have had for omitting them? 
(ὑπάγειν is indeed a rare word with him, never 
occurring in the Acts and only once in the gospel, 
while it is found twenty times in St. Matthew, 
fifteen times in St. Mark, and thirty-three times 
in St. John). Besides, the phrase occurs again in 
St. Matt. xvi. 23, and may therefore, perhaps, have 
been inserted from the latter passage (where St. 
Mark viii. 33 also has it). 

The wide divergence at the beginning and end is 
partly due to the influence of the Markan text. 
Hence it is that St. Matthew derives the episode 
“ἄγγελοι διηκόνουν αὐτῷ" (προσῆλθον belongs to 
the style of St. Matthew, the word is found more 
than fifty times in this gospel). It is from St. Mark 
that St. Luke derives “ ἡμέρας μ' πειραζόμενος ὑπὸ 
τοῦ διαβόλου " (St. Mark: μ' ἡμέρας πειραζόμενος ὑπὸ 
τοῦ Σατανᾶ). ΑἹ] further deviations of St. Luke 
from St. Matthew in the introduction are likewise 
secondary, so that we must recognise the pure text 
of Q in the version of St. Matthew; for (1) in place 
of the representation of the Spirit as the active 
subject St. Luke writes in accordance with his 
style and mode of thinking: πλήρης πνεύματος ἁγίου 
and ἐν τῷ πνεύματι; (2) he inserts ὑπέστρεψεν ἀπὸ 
τ. ᾿Ιορδ. (ὑποστρέφειν is found twenty-two times in 
the gospel and eleven times in the Acts, never in 
St. Mark or St. Matthew); (3) he writes the imper- 
fect ἤγετο for ἀνήχθη (the use of the imperfect is 


INVESTIGATION OF THE TEXT 48 


almost peculiar to St. Luke; moreover, ἀνήχθη is 
certainly original, for it is found in St. Matthew 
only in this passage, and it gives a correct touch of 
local colouring [the wilderness is on the high ground] 
—elsewhere in St. Luke the word occurs frequently ; 
it is dropped here because the evangelist did not 
understand its significance); (4) he omits the forty 
nights as superfluous (agreeing with St. Mark); (5) 
he replaces the clumsy ὕστερον by the good Greek 
phrase συντελεσθεισῶν αὐτῶν, (6) he mistakes the 
technical νηστεύειν, and replaces it by the extravagant 
οὐκ ἔφαγεν οὐδέν, (7) by his corrections, or through 
the influence of the Markan text, he has made it 
appear doubtful whether the temptations occurred 
during the forty days or first after that period 
had passed. 

St. Matt. 3: προσελθών is added by St. Matthew 
(vide supra); dé is put for καί by St. Luke; ὁ πειράζων 
is most probably the original word. 

St. Matt. 3: The one stone of St. Luke, and the 
address to the stone, seem to me secondary, just 
because they better suit the situation. Why should 
St. Matthew have changed them? 

St. Matt. 4: ὁ δὲ ἀποκριθεὶς εἶπεν is characteristic 
of St. Matthew’s solemn style, but πρὸς αὐτὸν is 
Lukan, likewise ὅτι. 

St. Matt. 4: ἀλλ᾽ ἐπὶ παντὶ ῥήματι θεοῦ (with or 
without ἐκπορευομένῳ διὰ στόματος; words which have 
weak attestation) is an interpolation of St. Matthew, 
who completes the quotation from the LXX. 

St. Matt. 5: The historic present is here, as always, 
avoided by St. Luke; likewise παραλαμβάνειν εἰς (also 


46 THE SAYINGS OF JESUS 


in verse 8, again in St. Matt. xxvii. 27) was distasteful 
to him. 

St. Matt. 5: St. Matthew has replaced « Jerusalem ἢ 
by «the holy city ” (see also xxvii. 53); for the gospel 
of the Hebrews also read « Jerusalem.” 

St. Matt. 5: St. Luke avoids the Semitic repetition 
of αὐτόν. 

St. Matt. 5: ἐντεῦθεν is a Lukan interpolation; 
the word is found elsewhere in St. Luke, never however 
in St. Matthew and St. Mark. 

St. Matt. 6: τοῦ διαφυλάξαι σε is an interpolation 
of St. Luke’s (according to the LXX), so also ὅτι 
here and in verse 7. 

St. Matt. 7: Here St. Luke with καὶ ἀποκριθεὶς ὁ 
᾿Ιησοῦς εἶπεν αὐτῷ is the more circumstantial of the 
two, so also in St. Matt. 10. 

St. Matt. ἡ: The πάλιν of St. Matthew is original ; 
St. Luke avoids πάλιν (see also St. Matt. 8); it is 
found about seventeen times in St. Matthew, twenty- 
nine times in St. Mark, forty-seven times in St. John; 
on the other hand, only two (three) times in St. Luke’s 
gospel and five times in the Acts.—yéyparrat, not 
εἴρηται, is original, for the latter (together with τὸ 
εἰρημένον) is peculiar to St. Luke—vide ii. 24; Acts 
11. 16, xii. 40; elsewhere only in Rom. iv. 18. 

St. Matt. 8, 9: ὄρος ὑψηλόν, perhaps also attested 
by the gospel of the Hebrews; St. Luke rationalises 
and leaves the scene somewhat in shadow (he would 
probably have us suppose that our Lord was raised up 
into the air so as to be able to see everything).—The 
word οἰκουμένη is Lukan (used by St. Luke eight times, 
once by St. Matthew, never by St. Mark and St. John) ; 


INVESTIGATION OF THE TEXT 47 


ἐν στιγμῳ χρόνου is of course interpolated by St. Luke 
(the words καὶ τὴν δόξαν αὐτῶν have either been dis- 
placed in St. Luke or should be omitted altogether). 
St. Luke’s theological opinions have likewise led him 
to amplify the devil’s address to our Lord by the long 
interpolation: σοὶ (set at the beginning, cf the ἐμοὶ 
and ov in what follows) δώσω τὴν ἐξουσίαν ταύτην 
ἅπασαν, ὅτι ἐμοὶ παραδέδοται καὶ ᾧ ἂν θέλω δίδωμι 
αὐτήν: σὺ ov... ἔσται σοι πᾶσα.---ἐνῶπιον is 
Lukan (occurring in St. Luke thirty-six times, never 
in St. Mark and St. Matthew); on the other hand, 
πεσών is an interpolation in the style of St. Matthew 
fee tls xviii. 26, 29). 

St. Matt. 10: Concerning ὕπαγε Σατανᾶ (whence 
the inserted γάρ which follows), vide supra. 

St. Matt. 11: καὶ συντελ. π. πειρ. is added by St. 
Luke (συντελεῖν is wanting in St. Matthew, occurs 
twice elsewhere in St. Luke).—agijow stood in Q; 
ἀφιστάναι is found ten times in St. Luke, never in St. 
Matthew. St. Mark, and St. John.—aypu καιροῦ 15 a 
Lukan interpolation which weakens the unique signi- 
ficance of these temptations. The expression occurs 
again in the New Testament only in Acts xiii. 11. 

The text of the story of the Temptation, as it 
stood in Q, can therefore in my opinion be still 
restored with almost perfect certainty; almost every- 
where the matter which is peculiar to either of our 
two authorities shows itself to be secondary. The 
genuine text is the shortest, and St. Matthew ap- 
proaches nearer to it than does St. Luke. Q here 
ran somewhat as follows :— 


‘O ἀϊ ~ ’ , θ ᾿] Α +S e A ~ , 
ἡσοὺς ἀνήχθη εἰς THY ἐρήμον ὑπὸ τοὺ πνευματος 


48 THE SAYINGS OF JESUS 


πειρασθῆναι v ὑπὸ τοῦ διαβόλου, καὶ νηστεύσας ἡμέρας μ' 
καὶ γύκτας μ' ὕστερον ἐπείνασεν, καὶ ὁ πειράζων εἶπεν 
αὐτῷ" εἰ υἱὸς εἶ τοῦ θεοῦ, εἰπὲ ἵνα οἱ λίθοι οὗτοι ἄρτοι 
γένωνται, καὶ ἀπεκρίθη" γέγραπται: οὐκ ἐπ’ ἄρτῳ 
μόνῳ ζήσεται ὁ ὁ ἄνθρωπος. παραλαμβάνει. δὲ αὐτὸν 
εἰς Ἱερουσαλὴμ καὶ ἔστησεν αὐτὸν ἐπὶ τὸ πτερύγιον τοῦ 
ἱεροῦ καὶ λέγει αὐτῷ" εἰ υἱὸς εἶ τοῦ θεοῦ, βάλε σεαυτὸν 
κάτω" γέγραπται γὰρ ὅτι τοῖς ἀγγέλοις αὐτοῦ 
ἐντελεῖται περὶ σοῦ, καὶ ἐπὶ χειρῶν ἀροῦσίν σε, 
μή ποτε προσκόψῃς πρὸς λίθον τὸν πόδα σου. 
ἔφη αὐτῷ ὁ ᾿Ιησοῦς" πάλιν γέγραπται" οὐκ ἐκπειρά- 
σεις κύριον τὸν θεόν σου. πάλιν παραλαμβάνει 
αὐτὸν εἰς ὄρος ὑψηλὸν λίαν καὶ δείκνυσιν αὐτῷ πάσας 
τὰς βασιλείας τοῦ κόσμου καὶ τὴν δόξαν αὐτῶν, καὶ 
εἶπεν αὐτῷ" ταῦτά σοι πάντα δώσω, ἐὰν προσκυνήσῃς 
μοι. καὶ λέγει αὐτῷ ὁ ᾿Ιησοῦς" γέγραπται κύριον 
τὸν θεόν σου προσκυνήσεις καὶ αὐτῷ μόνῳ 
λατρεύσεις, καὶ ἀφίησιν αὐτὸν ὁ διάβολος. 


St. Math v.3, 4:6, 11, St. Luke vic goa 
12, 23. 

(5) Μακάριοι οἱ πτωχοὶ 
τῷ πνεύματι, ὅτι αὐτῶν τῷ πνεύματι OM. ὑμετέρα 
ἐστιν ἡ βασιλεία τῶν (f. αὐτῶν) του 
οὐρανῶν. θεοῦ (f. τ. οὐρ.) 

(4) μακάριοι οἱ πενθοῦν- These two verses are trans- 
τες, OTL αὐτοὶ παρακληθή- posed in St. Luke. κλαί- 
σονται.ἷ οντες νὺν (f. πενθ.) γελά- 

cere (f. αὐτ. παρακλ.) 


1 The beatitude which immediately follows in the ordinary text 
(its position varies in the MSS.): μακάριοι of πραεῖς, ὅτι αὐτοὶ KAnpovo- 
μήσουσιν τὴν γῆν (=Ps. xxxvii. 11), is probably a later interpolation ; 
vide Wellhausen on this passage, 


INVESTIGATION 


(6) μακάριοι of πεινῶντες 
4 A A 
καὶ διψῶντες τὴν δικαιο- 
σύνην, ὅτι αὐτοὶ χορτασ- 
θήσονται. 
(11) μακάριοί ἐστε ὅταν 
3 , ε “ A ’ 
ὀνειδίσωσιν ὑμᾶς καὶ διώξω- 
σιν καὶ εἴπωσιν πᾶν πονηρὸν 
᾿] e ~ ’ 
καθ᾿ ὑμῶν ψψευδόμενοι 
[ἕνεκεν ἐμοῦ]. (12) χαίρετε 
A 5) laa 4 δ 
καὶ ἀγαλλιᾶσθε, ὅτι ὃ 
μισθὸς ὑμῶν πολὺς ἐν τοῖς 
οὐρανοῖς" οὕτως γὰρ ἐδί- 
A , A 
wéav τοὺς προφήτας Tov 
ἔω τοὺς προφήτας τοὺς 
πρὸ ὑμῶν. 


OF THE TEXT 49 

νῦν (post πεινῶντες) 

καὶ . . . δικαιοσ. om. 
αὐτοί om. χορτασθή- 


σεσθε 

+ Φ 

ἔσεσθε (3) ὅταν μισήσωσιν 

ς Ἕ ew , oe 

ὑμας οἱ ἄνθρωποι καὶ ὅταν 

93 , “ 

ἀφορίσωσιν ὑμᾶς [καὶ ὀνει- 

δί ἢ A 9 , 
ἰσωσιν ἢ] καὶ ἐκβαάλωσιν 
\ la A 

TO ὄνομα ὑμῶν ὡς πονηρὸν 

ἕνεκα τοῦ υἱοῦ τοῦ ἀνθρώ- 

, lal 
που. χάρητε ἐν ἐκείνῃ τῇ 
, A 

ἡμέρᾳ καὶ σκιρτήσατε: ἰδοὺ 
δ ς \ ΄“ 

γὰρ ὁ μισθὸς ὑμῶν πολὺς 

’ ~ ~~ 

ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ" κατὰ τὰ 
.,᾿ A Ἁ ’ - 

αὑτα yap ἐποίουν τοῖς 

, 
προφήταις οἱ πατέρες 
αὐτῶν. 


It is still possible practically to settle the question 


of the original text of verses 3, 4, 6.1 


As (καὶ 


διψῶντες) τὴν δικαιοσύνην is added by St. Matthew, 
so also with the greatest probability we may decide 
similarly concerning τῷ πνεύματι (the simple πτωχοὶ 
is also found in St. Matt. xi. 5: πτωχοὶ εὐαγγελί- 
ζονται). On the other hand, κλαίοντες (for πεν- 
θοῦντες) is certainly a correction of St. Luke, who 


1 Apart from the order, and perhaps also the question whether 
the first or third person is original. The pronoun ὑμέτερος is 
certainly Lukan (vide a Concordance); but it may stand for an 
original ὑμῶν. Wellhausen and others decide for St. Luke. But 
the repetition of the pleonastic αὐτοί gives an impression of origin- 
ality, and St. Luke also elsewhere (cf. St. Matt. xi. 18) transforms 
the third person into the second. 

D 


50 THE SAYINGS OF JESUS 


is fond of using κλαίειν (eleven times in the gospel, 
in St. Matthew only two occurrences and one of these 
in a quotation, cf St. Luke vii. 82 = St. Matt. xi. 17); 
κλαίειν then brought about the yeAacere in the follow- 
ing clause (St. Luke is fond of strong expressions, γελᾶν 
occurs again with him only in vi. 25, never elsewhere 
in the New Testament), Ps. cxxvi. may have influenced 
the evangelist here. The twofold wy is of course also 
interpolated by St. Luke (νῦν occurs thirty-seven times 
in the gospel and Acts, four times in St. Matthew). 
St. Matthew 11 and St. Luke 22 look like two 
separate translations, yet are not so, as is shown by 
St. Matthew 12=St. Luke 23. We must start 
from the consideration of this verse and it will then 
appear that St. Luke is almost everywhere secondary. 
Ἔν ἐκείνῃ τῇ ἡμέρᾳ is as secondary as νῦν, the im- 
perative aorists are an improvement in style; σκιρτή- 
cate (for ἀγαλλιᾶσθε) is a genuinely Lukan exaggera- 
tion (vide supra γελάσετε); σκιρτᾶν is peculiar to 
St. Luke in the New Testament (vide 1. 41, 44), like- 
wise ἰδοὺ γὰρ (never found in St. Matthew and 
St. Mark, six times in St. Luke); St. Luke does 
not care for the plural οὐρανοῖς» and (κατὰ) τὰ αὐτά 
is Lukan (elsewhere in the New Testament only in 
St. Luke vi. 26 and Acts xv. 27). ᾿Εποίουν for 
ἐδίωξαν was written by St. Luke, because in the preced- 
ing clauses not only persecutions but also other trials 
are mentioned. A genuine translation-variant appears 
to stand at the conclusion. Wellhausen says: «St. 
Luke has read ‘their forefathers’ as the subject of 
the verb; St. Matthew has read ‘your forefathers’ 
in apposition to the Prophets. The difference in 


INVESTIGATION OF THE TEXT 51 


Aramaic is only that of dag’damaihén (οἱ πατέρες 
αὐτῶν) from dag’damaikén (τοὺς πρὸ ὑμῶν). But there 
is yet another explanation of this variation—namely, 
that St. Luke is here influenced by his reminiscence 
of the familiar invective against the Pharisees (St. 
Matt. xxiii. 29 f.=St. Luke xi. 47 f.); in that passage 
the prophets and the fathers are spoken of together, 
and thence he has derived “the fathers” here. This 
may have happened the more easily since the words 
in St. Matthew (ze. in Q), τοὺς πρὸ ὑμῶν, appeared 
liable to misinterpretation (Apostles= Prophets), or 
as an unnecessary addition which of itself cried out 
for some better substitute. 

It accordingly follows that St. Matthew 12 pre- 
sents the original text of Q, which has been altered 
by St. Luke. Then, however, it is possible that 
also St. Matthew 11=St. Luke 22 are not two 
different translations of a common original; rather 
it is probable that here again St. Luke has deliber- 
ately altered—in fact, has transformed—the ; whole 
verse. ‘This, in the first place, shows itself in the 
stylistic variants. In place of πονηρὸν . . . Ψευδό- 
μενοι (the very fact that ψευδόμενοι does not occur 
elsewhere in the synoptists shows that it probably 
belongs to Q) he writes the excellent Greek phrase 
ὡς πονηρόν, and supplies the subjectless verbs with 
the subject of ἄνθρωποι. One of the principal dif- 
ferences is that St. Matthew has ὀνειδίσωσιν, διώξωσιν, 
εἴπωσιν πᾶν πονηρὸν καθ’ ὑμῶν ψευδόμενοι; while 
St. Luke writes μισήσωσιν, ἀφορίσωσιν, ἐκβάλωσιν τ. 
ὄνομα ὑμῶν ὡς πονηρόν. The order in St. Matthew 
is not quite logical, in St. Luke it is strictly logical : 


52 THE SAYINGS OF JESUS 


hatred is followed by excommunication, excom- 
munication by the general defamation of the name. 
Besides, we find that St. Luke uses μισεῖν also in 
other places where it does not occur in the parallel 
passage of St. Matthew (vi. 27, xiv. 26), and that 
ἐκβάλλειν, in the metaphorical sense=«to defame” 
(here only in the New Testament), is good Greek, 
whereas εἰπεῖν πᾶν πονηρόν is not Greek at all. 
Accordingly, here also the text of St. Matthew is 
everywhere to be preferred. It must remain an open 
question whether, in the places where St. Matthew 
is secondary, the corrections are due to the evangelist 
himself or whether a secondary text already lay 
before him. The Beatitudes certainly circulated in 
various recensions from an early period, indeed from 
the beginning. ‘Thus Polycarp (Epist. 2) quotes 
as follows: μακάριοι οἱ πτωχοὶ καὶ of διωκόμενοι ἕνεκεν 
δικαιοσύνης, ὅτι αὐτῶν ἐστιν ἡ βασιλεία τοῦ θεοῦ. 
This looks like a combination of the texts of 
St. Matthew and St. Luke; perhaps, however, it 
is a combination of these two and of the source, 
or perhaps it is another version of the source. 

A word must be said concerning [ἕνεκεν ἐμοῦ] in 
St. Matthew and ἕνεκα τοῦ υἱοῦ τοῦ ἀνθρώπου in 
St. Luke. St. Matthew’s phraseology here is some- 
what redundant; many authorities have therefore 
omitted ψευδόμενοι; but this word seems to me to 
be supported by the ws πονηρόν of St. Luke (vide 
supra). On the other hand, ἕνεκεν ἐμοῦ should be 
omitted. from the text of St. Matthew, for a suc- 
cession of ancient Western authorities do not read 
it; others read ἕνεκεν δικαιοσύνης (Da.b.c.g’.k); the 


INVESTIGATION OF THE TEXT = 53 


ancient Syriac reads ἕνεκεν τοῦ ὀνόματός μου. If these 
words were wanting in St. Matthew then the ἕνεκ. τ. 
υἱοῦ τ. ἀνθρ. of St. Luke most certainly did not 
stand in Q. ‘This phrase stands in close connection 
with τὸ ὄνομα ὑμῶν, which also does not belong to Q 
(vide supra). If, nevertheless, the critic asserts that 
ἕνεκεν must belong to Q, it is no longer possible to 
ascertain what word came after this preposition in 


the source. 


st. Matt. v. 13, 15, 18, 
25, 26, 32. 


(13) ὑμεῖς ore TO ἅλας 
wn ~ pT. \ ¢ 
τῆς ys’ ἐὰν δε TO ἅλας 
μωρανθῇ, ἐν τίνι ἁλισ- 
θήσεται; εἰς οὐδὲν ἰσχύει 
ἔτι εἰ μὴ βληθὲν ἔξω 
καταπατεῖσθαι ὑπὸ τῶν 
ἀνθρώπων. 

(15) οὐδὲ καίουσιν λύχ- 
νον καὶ τιθέασιν αὐτὸν 
e ‘ \ ’ὔ 9 ᾿] 
ὑπὸ τὸν μόδιον, ἀλλ 
’ A 4 , A 
emt τὴν λυχνίαν, Kat 
λάμπει πᾶσιν τοῖς ἐν TH 
οἰκίᾳ. 

(8) ἀμὴν γὰρ λέγω 
ὑμῖν, ἕως ἂν παρέλθη ὁ 
οὐρανὸς καὶ ἡ γῇ, ἰῶτα 
ἕν ἢ μία κεραία οὐ μὴ 

, ° \ fal , 
παρέλθῃ ἀπὸ τοῦ νόμου, 
ὲ , 
ἕως ἂν πάντα γένηται. 


St. Luke xiv. 34, 35; 
xi. 335 7 Sx. 58. 
59; xvi. 18. 

‘ > A 
καλὸν οὖν TO 
+N A A \ 
ἐὰν δὲ καὶ TO 

AL , ° , 
μωρανθῇ, ἐν τίνι ἀρτυθή- 
σεται; οὔτε εἰς γῆν οὔτε 
εἰς κοπρίαν εὔθετόν ἐστιν" 
ἔξω βάλλουσιν αὐτό. 


ἅλας" 
ἅλας 


οὐδες λύχνον ἅψας εἰς 
A ’ 3 QA 
κρυπτὴν τίθησιν [οὐδὲ 
‘ 
ὑπὸ TOV μόδιον], GAN 
᾽ A A , 4 ε 
emt τὴν λυχνίαν, ἵνα οὗ 
εἰσπορευόμενοι τὸ φῶς 
βλέπωσιν. 
>] ’ , 9 A 
εὐκοπώτερον δέ ἐστιν τὸν 
οὐρανὸν καὶ τὴν γῆν 
παρελθεῖν ἢ τοῦ νόμου 
μίαν κεραίαν πεσεῖν. 


54 THE SAYINGS OF JESUS 


(25) ἴδθι εὐνοῶν τῷ ἀν- 
τιδίκῳ σου ταχὺ ἕως ὅτου 
εἶ μετ’ αὐτοῦ ἐν τῇ ὁδῷ: 
μήποτέ σε παραδῷ 
ἀντίδικος τῷ κριτῇ καὶ 
κριτὴς τῷ ὑπηρέτῃ, καὶ 
εἰς φυλακὴν βληθήση: 
(26) ἀμὴν λέγω σοι, οὐ 
μὴ ἐξέλθης ἐκεῖθεν ἕως 
ἂν ἀποδῷς τὸν ἔσχατον 
κοδράντην. 


Pa 


(32) ἐγὼ δὲ λέγω ὑμῖν 
Ψ ΄ ς 9 , A 
OTL πᾶς O ἀπολύων THY 
γυναῖκα αὐτοῦ παρεκτὸς 
λόγου πορνείας ποιεῖ αὐτὴν 
μοιχευθῆναι, καὶ ὃς ἐὰν 
9 , , 
ἀπολελυμένην yaunon, 
μοιχᾶται. 


ὡς γὰρ ὑπάγεις μετὰ τοῦ 
ἀντιδίκου, σου ἐπ᾽ ἄρχ- 
ovra, ἐν τῇ ὁδῷ δὸς ἐ ἐργα- 
σίαν ἀπηλλάχθαι d an αὐτοῦ, 
μήποτε κατασύρῃ σε πρὸς 
τὸν κριτήν, καὶ ὁ κριτής 
σε παραδώσει τῷ TT paK- 
τορι, Kal ὁ TpaKTwp σε 
βαλεῖ εἰς φυλακήν: 
λέγω σοι, οὐ μὴ ἐξέλθης 
ἐκεῖθεν ἕως καὶ τὸ ἔσχα- 
Tov λεπτὸν ἀποδῷῴς. 

πᾶς ὁ ἀπολύων τὴν γυ- 
ναῖκα αὐτοῦ καὶ γαμὼν 
e , , 4A e 
ἑτέραν μοιχεύει, καὶ ὁ 
ἀπολελυμένην ἀπὸ ἀν- 
δρὸς γαμῶν μοιχεύει. 


The first saying also stood in St. Mark (ix. 50) 


in the form: 


καλὸν TO ἅλας: ἐὰν δὲ TO ἅλας ἄναλον 


γένηται, ἐν τίνι αὐτὸ ἀρτύσετε; ἔχετε ἐν ἑαυτοῖς ἅλα. 
The saying in Q ran: ὑμεῖς ἐστε τὸ ἅλας τῆς γῆς 
[in this form or in a similar form St. Luke must 
have read it in Q, for the context in which he gives 
the saying shows that he referred it, like St. Matthew, 
to the disciples; but as in cases of doubt he often 
prefers St. Mark to Q, so here also he has chosen the 
form of St. Mark]- ἐὰν δὲ τὸ ἅλας μωρανθῇ, ἐν τίνι 
ἁλισθήσεται [here also St. Luke uses the ἀρτύειν of 
St. Mark]; εἰς οὐδὲν ἰσχύει ἔτι [St. Luke replaces this 


INVESTIGATION OF 'FHE TEXT δ 


expression by οὐκ εὔθετος (εὔθετος and ἀνεύθετος are 
peculiar to St. Luke, cf xiv. 35 and Acts xxvii. 12), 
and reinforces it according to his custom with the 
phrase οὔτε εἰς γῆν οὔτε εἰς κοπρίαν (κοπρία only in 
St. Luke, vide xiii. 8); which also replaces the word 
καταπατεῖσθαι] εἰ μὴ βληθὲν ἔξω καταπατεῖσθαι ὑπὸ 
τῶν ἀνθρώπων [that βληθὲν ἔξω is original is shown 
by the fact that St. Luke did not like to sacrifice it, 
but let it hobble behind the main body of the saying]. 
Thus the verse stood in Q in the form in which it is 
preserved in St. Matthew. 

In the second saying, ἅπτειν and ἀνάπτειν (for “fire” 
and « light”), are Lukan, so that the verdict here must 
be given for St. Matthew ; the participial construction 
is Lukan; the οὐδείς for an indefinite third person 
plural is a stylistic improvement. Ὑπὸ τὸν μόδιον 
is probably an interpolation from St. Matthew into 
the Lukan text; St. Luke says εἰς κρυπτήν. Oi 
εἰσπορευόμενοι is Lukan, vide viii. 16; Acts iii. 2, 
xxviii. 30.—The saying occurs four times in the 
gospels (twice in St. Luke). In St. Mark iv. 21 it 
runs: μήτι ἔρχεται ὁ λύχνος ἵνα ὑπὸ τὸν μόδιον τεθῇ 
ἢ ὑπὸ τὴν κλίνην, οὐχ ἵνα ἐπὶ τὴν λυχνίαν τεθῇ, in Q 
it ran as St. Matthew gives it. St. Luke gives it both 
times (vide vili. 16) with the same traits which can 
be easily explained as peculiarities of his own; in 
viii. 16, however, he inserts the “bed” from St. 
Mark, and replaces the “bushel” not by εἰς κρυπτήν 
but by the general phrase καλύπτει αὐτὸν σκεύει (for 
this word see Acts ix. 15; x. 11,16; xi.5; xxvii. 17). 
In making the lamp give light, not to those within 
the house but to those entering in, St. Luke evi- 


δῦ THE SAYINGS OF JESUS 


dently intends to improve the sense of the passage ; 
he perhaps also thinks of the missionary aspect of 
‘ the gospel (though this is doubtful). 

The third saying in Q ran as follows: ἕως ἂν παρέλθη 
ὁ οὐρανὸς καὶ ἡ γῆ, ἰῶτα ἕν ἢ μία κεραία οὐ μὴ παρέλθῃ 
ἀπὸ τοῦ νόμον. In regard to form, St. Luke has 
improved the clumsy construction, but he has also 
altered the thought by the εὐκοπώτερον which he 
has adopted from other sayings (vide St. Matt. ix. 5 
cum parall.; xix. 24 cum parall.). According to St. 
Matthew, the Law abides as long as Heaven and Earth 
remain; according to St. Luke, it lasts longer than 
they. Here we discern St. Luke’s genuinely Hellenic 
reverence for the Old Testament—a reverence which 
could be so deep, because the writer stood remote 
from the controversies concerning the application 
of the precepts of the Law to the daily life. The 
converse hypothesis (Wellhausen) that St. Matthew 
has attenuated the thought is unacceptable from 
considerations both of matter and style. St. Luke 
has introduced πεσεῖν in order to avoid the double 
παρέλθῃ (πεσεῖν in the metaphorical sense is not 
found in the gospels, but cf Rom. xi. 11, 22; xiv. 4; 
1 Cor. x. 12; xiii. 8; Heb. iv. 11), and he has 
omitted the ἰῶτα ὃν as superfluous and somewhat 
singular. In St. Matthew the opening words ἀμὴν 
y. A. ὑμῖν and the concluding clause ἕως ἂν πάντα γέν. 
are perhaps secondary. The latter was probably 
added because the preceding passage in St. Matthew 
speaks of « fulfilling”; the evangelist may, besides, 
have been influenced by a reminiscence of St. Mark 
xili. 30. 


INVESTIGATION OF THE TEXT 5δ7 


Close consideration of the fourth saying also shows 
that St. Matthew has excellently preserved the text 
of Q (perhaps ἀμήν is secondary). ‘The temporal ws 
at the beginning is specifically Lukan (references are 
here unnecessary) ; en’ ἄρχοντα is an explanatory 
interpolation, and ἴσθι εὐνοῶν (here only in the New 
Testament) seemed to St. Luke too weak—he replaced 
it by the transparently clear phrase δὸς ἐργασίαν 
ἀπηλλάχθαι an’ αὐτοῦ (ἐργασία is not found elsewhere 
in the four gospels, see however Acts xvi. 16, 19; 
xix. 24, 25; Ephes. iv. 19; neither is ἀπαλλάσσειν 
found elsewhere in the four gospels, see however 
Acts xix. 12: ἀπαλλάσσεσθαι ἀπ’ αὐτῶν). St. Luke 
has just as happily avoided the awkward phrase ταχὺ 
ἕως ὅτου εἶ μετ᾽ αὐτοῦ (he places the μετά at the very 
beginning), as well as the unnecessary repetition of 
ὁ ἀντίδικος. Moreover, his sense of style would not 
allow him to describe the action of the adversary and 
the judge with one and the same word (St. Matthew 
uses παραδοῦναι in both cases); he writes here. κατα- 
σύρειν and παραδοῦναι (katacvpe does not occur 
elsewhere in the New Testament, but σύρειν [of men] 
is peculiar to St. Luke, occurring indeed three times in 
the Acts). St. Luke has replaced the very indefinite 
word ὑπηρέτης by the technical term ὁ TT PAKTWs and 
the vulgar κοδράντης by λεπτόν. In all these cases 
it is simply inconceivable that St. Matthew had before 
him, and has altered, the text presented in St. Luke. 

In the fifth saying St. Luke is evidently dependent 
not only upon Q but also upon St. Mark x. ii. (ὃς 
dv ἀπολύσῃ τὴν γυναῖκα αὐτοῦ καὶ γαμήσῃ ἄλλην, 
μοιχᾶται ἐπ᾽ αὐτήν: καὶ ἐὰν αὐτὴ ἀπολύσασα τὸν 


ὅδ THE SAYINGS OF JESUS 


ἄνδρα αὐτῆς ὩΣ ἐὰν γυνὴ ἐξέλθῃ ἀπὸ τοῦ ἀνδρὸς 
αὐτῆς καὶ] γαμήση ἄλλον, μοιχᾶται). Accordingly, 
in St. Matthew we have only to omit the introduction 
and the phrase παρεκτὸς λόγου πορνείας. In St. Luke 
καὶ γαμὼν ἑτέραν comes from another source—in fact, 
from St. Mark—and by its insertion the sense of the 
saying is altogether changed (that St. Luke’s correct- 
ing hand was at work here is also evident from the 
substitution of the participle for ὃς ἐὰν γαμήσῃ). In 
@ the saying gave expression to the austere thought: 
“He who divorces his wife causes her to commit 
adultery: both she and her new husband are guilty 
of adultery.” St. Luke has completely changed this 


thought. 


St. Matt. v. 39, 40, 42, 
4448, 
(39) “Ὅστις σε ῥαπίζει 
" 4 ‘ , 
εἰς τὴν [δεξιὰν] σιαγόνα 
(σου), στρέψον αὐτῷ καὶ 
4 + 
τὴν ἄλλην, 
(40) καὶ τῷ θελοντί σοι 
κριθῆναι καὶ τὸν χιτῶνά 
- +S ε ω, 4A 
σου λαβεῖν, aes αὐτῳ Kat 
τὸ ἱμάτιον. 
(42) τῷ αἰτοῦντί σε δός, 
ἈΝ A ’ Φ 4A wn 
kat τὸν θέλοντα ἀπὸ σοῦ 


δανίσασθαι μὴ ἀποσ- 


τραφῇ. 


(44) ἐ ἐγὼ , 38 λέγω ὑμῖν" 


ἀγαπᾶτε τοὺς ἐχθροὺς 


St. Luke vi. 29, 30, 27, 
28, 35”, 32, 33, 36. 
τῷ TUTTOVTL σε εἰς [ἐπὶ] 
τὴν σιαγόνα, πάρεχε καὶ 
τὴν ἄλλην, 


. re ‘ A 39 , 

Kal ἀπὸ τοῦ αἱροντὸς σου 
ἌΣ ΝΗΡ Γ A >| A 
TO ἱμάτιον καὶ τὸν χιτῶνα 

4 , 
μὴ κωλύσῃς. 


4 3 “ ῇ , 
παντὶ αἰτοῦντί σε δίδου, 
καὶ ἀπὸ τοῦ αἴροντος τὰ 
σὰ μὴ ἀπαίτει [ζ΄ v. 35: 

Ακ [ἐ \ =) 
Kal δανείζετε μηδὲν ἀπελ- 
πίζοντες ]. 
et oa ’ “- 9 , 
ὑμῖν λέγω τοῖς ἀκούουσιν" 
ἀγαπ. τ. ἐχθρ. ὑμ., καλῶς 


INVESTIGATION 


e A 4 , 
ὑμῶν Kal προσεύχεσθε 


Α ~ , ΄σ΄ 
ὑπερ τῶν διωκόντων ὑμᾶς, 


(45) ὅπως γένησθε υἱοὶ 

ἃ: tae ans 
TOU πατρὸς ὑμῶν TOU ἐν 
οὐρανοῖς, ὅτι τὸν ἥλιον 
αὐτοῦ ἀνατέλλει ἐπὶ πονη- 
ροὺς καὶ ἀγαθοὺς καὶ 
βρέχει ἐπὶ δικαίους καὶ 
ἀδίκους. 

(46) ἐὰν γὰρ ἀγαπής- 
σητε τοὺς ἀγαπῶντας ὑμᾶς, 
τίνα μισθὸν ἔχετε; οὐχὶ 
καὶ οἱ τελῶναι τὸ αὐτὸ 
ποιοῦσιν; 

(47) καὶ ἐὰν ἀσπάσησθε 
τοὺς ἀδελφοὺς ὑμῶν μόνον, 
τί περισσὸν ποιεῖτε; οὐχὶ 


A e > | A >] 4 
καὶ ot ἐθνικοὺ TO αὐτὸ 
ποιοῦσιν; 

(48) ἔσεσθε οὖν ὑμεῖς 


, ς « 4 e ~ e 
τέλειοι WS ὁ πατὴρ ὑμῶν O 
οι ’ ’ ’ - 
οὐράνοις TEAELOS ἐστιν. 


OF ‘THE TEXT 59 


ποιεῖτε τοῖς μισοῦσιν ὑμᾶς, 

εὐλογεῖτε τοὺς καταρω- 

μένους ὑμᾶς, προσεύχεσθε 

περὶ τῶν ἐπηρεαζόντων 

ὑμᾶς, 

καὶ ἔσεσθε υἱοὶ ὑψίστου, 

ὅτι αὐτὸς χρηστός ἐστιν 

ἐπὶ τοὺς ἀχαρίστους καὶ 
/ 

πονηρούς, 


καί εἰ ἀγαπᾶτε τοὺς 
ἀγαπῶντας ὑμᾶς, ποία ὑμῖν 
χάρις [ἐστίν]; καὶ γὰρ οἱ 
ἁμαρτωλοὶ τοὺς ἀγαπῶν- 
- A >) ~ 
τας αὐτοὺς ἀγαπῶσιν. 
καὶ [γὰρ] ἐὰν [et] ἀγαθο- 
ποιῆτε [-εἶτε] τοὺς ἀγαθο- 
x an ds ae 
ποιοῦντας ὑμᾶς, ποία ὑμῖν 
χάρις [χάρις Ue] ἐστίν; 
καὶ οἱ ἁμαρτωλοὶ τὸ αὐτὸ 
ποιοῦσιν. 
γίνεσθε οἰκτίρμονες, καθὼς 
0 πατὴρ ὑμῶν οἰκτίρμων 
ἐστίν [οἰκτείρει]. 


There can be no question that in the two first 
verses St. Matthew has preserved the original text ; 
St. Luke has (1) introduced the participial con- 
struction; he has (2) replaced the vulgar ῥαπίζειν 
by τύπτειν, the equally vulgar στρέψον by πάρεχε; 


60 THE SAYINGS OF JESUS 


the awkward un-Hellenic and diffuse τῴ θέλοντί cot 
κριθῆναι καὶ. . . λαβεῖν by ἀπὸ τοῦ αἴροντος (in the 
latter instance he has transformed a command relating 
to behaviour in case of a judicial action into a general 
maxim ; hence μὴ κωλύσῃς for the more positive ἄφες. 
St. Matthew says: «He who wishes to sue thee for 
thy coat, allow him to take also thy cloak”; St. Luke 
says: “ He who takes thy cloak, hinder him not from 
taking also thy coat”). Ραπίζειν is found in the New 
Testament only in St. Matthew (viz. once again in xxvi. 
67); στρέφειν is used by St. Luke only in the form 
στραφείς, notice also the Semitic repetition of the 
dative in αὐτῷ (D. has avoided this by writing ὁ θέλων). 
In the order, « cloak ”—« coat,” St. Luke might seem 
to represent the original; “for the coat is nearer to 
the body than the cloak.” But St. Luke was obliged 
to begin with the cloak, for the robber catches hold 
of the cloak, not the undergarment; we can thus 
easily understand that the Lukan text is secondary in 
its origin, but we cannot explain a secondary origin 
of the text of St. Matthew. 

The Lukan insertion of παντί in St. Matthew 
verse 42, is also found in the Lukan version of the 
fifth petition of the Lord’s Prayer and elsewhere in 
St. Luke; likewise the substitution of δίδου for δός 
also occurs in the fourth petition of that prayer. 
Δίδου is more correct Greek, seeing that the command 
is general. In what follows, the words ἀπαιτεῖν (note 
the play upon αἰτεῖν and ἀπαιτεῖν) and ἀπελπίζειν of 
themselves show classical feeling; the possessive pro- 
noun (τὰ oa) is also Lukan; the whole clause, καὶ 
ἀπὸ Tov αἴροντος ... ἀπαίτει; is interpolated by 


INVESTIGATION OF THE TEXT § 61 


St. Luke. On the other hand, verse 42° in St. 
Matthew is original, for the thought is expressed in 
St. Luke 35, and the construction in St. Matthew is 
clumsy (the middle ἀποστρέφεσθαι is not found in 
St. Luke). 

In verse 44 St. Luke has, as is so often the case, 
omitted the superfluous pronominal subject, and has 
added τοῖς ἀκούουσιν (influenced by what precedes in 
this gospel). In this verse the two exhortations pecu- 
liar to St. Luke can scarcely be original; what reason 
could St. Matthew have had for omitting them? 
Besides, St. Luke is fond of the words μισεῖν and 
εὐλογεῖν (οἱ μισοῦντες ἡμᾶς» in the literature of the 
post-apostolic epoch, is indeed almost a technical 
term with Christians for their adversaries). The four 
verbs ἀγαπᾶν, καλῶς ποιεῖν; εὐλογεῖν. προσεύχεσθαι 
form a premeditated climax which is not to be com- 
pared for originality with the simple combination 
of ayaray and προσεύχεσθαι. St. Luke has already 
avoided the word διώκειν in St. Matt. v. 11, 12 (vide 
supra)—why, I know not; émnpeaCew occurs again 
only in 1 Pet. iii. 16, and does not belong to the 
vocabulary of common speech (vide Aristotle’s de- 
finition). 

In verse 45 the peculiarly Lukan ὕψιστος (without 
ὁ and without θεός) shows that St. Luke has made 
changes; ὅπως is not frequent in St. Luke (it is found 
only seven times in the gospel), elsewhere also its use 
is avoided by this evangelist. Χρηστός ἐστιν ἐπὶ τοὺς 
ἀχαρίστους has too much of the flavour of the lite- 
rary style to be original. It is difficult to say why 
St. Luke has done away with the beautiful simile of 


62 THE SAYINGS OF JESUS 


St. Matthew. Did he think that it did not express the 
thought clearly enough? That he had it before him 
in his source seems to follow from πονηρούς; which 
comes in haltingly at the close (the δίκαιος and ἄδικος 
of St. Matthew are suspicious; the former being a 
favourite word with this evangelist). «Your Father 
in Heaven,” in St. Matthew, is almost always sus- 
picious. At the very least, “in Heaven” is to be 
omitted. 

In verse 46 τίνα μισθὸν ἔχετε is certainly original ; 
for χάρις, given by St. Luke, is a specifically Lukan 
word (found twenty-five times in the gospel and the 
Acts, never occurring in St. Matthew and St. Mark). 
The question in 46° is also original; for καὶ yap is 
Lukan (vide the fifth petition of the Lord’s Prayer 
in St. Luke, where St. Matthew has ὡς καί. in 
St. Matthew καὶ yap occurs twice, in St. Luke’s 
gospel nine times), and St. Luke has often removed 
rhetorical questions from Q. Again, the τελῶναι 
must be more original than the more general term 
of ἁμαρτωλοί. St. Luke perhaps did not wish to 
repeat the phrase τὸ αὐτὸ ποιοῦσιν (vide verse 47), 
therefore he develops it here. The e here and in 
the following verse is certainly secondary; in Q, 
ἐάν is very much more frequent than εἰ Also in 
other passages St. Luke has changed ἐάν into εἰ, 

In verse 47 St. Luke understood ἀσπάζεσθαι to 
mean “to be friendly disposed towards anya 
«to devote oneself in love towards anyone” (prob- 
ably rightly), and has accordingly rendered it by 
ἀγαθοποιεῖν, it is obvious that St. Matthew is 
original here. The μόνον of St. Matthew is also 


INVESTIGATION OF THE TEXT 68 


original; St. Luke avoids this use of the word (only 
once in the gospel [viii. 50]—-and that from St. 
Mark—while in St. Matthew it often occurs; it also 
occurs only once in the Acts). For ποία ὑμῖν χάρις, 
vide supra on verse 46; the fact that the correspond- 
ing words of St. Matthew (τί περισσὸν ποιεῖτε) are a 
vulgarism is in their favour. For καὶ οἱ ἁμαρτωλοί, 
vide supra on verse 46; « ἐθνικοί " is not found at all 
in St. Luke—the word would have been almost unin- 
telligible to his readers. 

In verse 48 St. Luke has again erased the super- 
fluous pronominal subject (cf verse 44). In replacing 
(ὅπως) γένησθε by ἔσεσθε in verse 45, and ἔσεσθε by 
γίνεσθε in verse 48, he has in both cases improved 
the logic of the passage. Likewise in writing καθώς 
for ws he has improved the style. It is, however, 
difficult to decide whether τέλειοι or οἰκτίρμονες is 
the original word. Wellhausen describes the latter 
as “much the more genuine.” Τέλειος is indeed 
found in the gospels only here and in St. Matt. 
xix. 21. To assign the idea to Q or to our Lord 
on the evidence of these two passages is hazardous. 
Οὐἰτίρμων is found nowhere else in the gospels. 
Nevertheless, I am inclined to prefer the latter word— 
at least so far as significance is concerned. Perhaps 
ἐλεήμονες stood in Q and has been replaced in St. 
Luke by the more refined word. | 


St. Matt. vi. 9: Ilarep St. Luke xi. 2-4. ἡμῶν 
ἡμῶν ὃ ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς" . . ovpav. om. ‘The 
ἁγιασθήτω τὸ ὄνομά σου" Beat three petitions are 

(10) ἐλθάτω ἡ βασιλεία probably wanting; read 


64 THE 


σου" γενηθήτω τὸ θέλημα 
σου, ὡς ἐν οὐρανῷ καὶ ἐπὶ 
γῆς" 
A ~ 

(11) τὸν ἄρτον ἡμῶν 
τὸν ἐπιούσιον δὸς ἡμῖν 
σήμερον" 

(12) καὶ ἄφες ἡμῖν τὰ 
9 , e ~ e A 
ὀφειλήματα ἡμῶν, ὡς καὶ 
e + 3 , - 9 
ἡμεῖς ἀφήκαμεν τοῖς ὀφει- 
λέταις ἡμῶν" 

(13) καὶ μὴ εἰσενέγκης 
ἡμᾶς εἰς πειρασμόν, ἀλλὰ 
ῥῦσαι ἡμᾶς ἀπὸ τοῦ πο- 


SAYINGS OF JESUS 


in their place: ἐλθέτω τὸ 
ἅγιον πνεῦμά σου ἐφ᾽ ἡμᾶς 
καὶ καθαρισάτω ἡμᾶς. 

(ἡμῶν Om. ?) 
δίδου τὸ καθ᾽ ἡμέραν 
(ἔ σήμερον) 

τὰς 

ε , 4 4 9 A 
ἁμαρτίας καὶ yap αὐτοὶ 
(f. ἡμεῖς) ἀφίομεν παντὶ 
9 [ ec « 
οφείλοντι ἡμῖν" 


ἀλλὰ 


- + » Tovnp. OM. 


νηροῦ. 


It is certain that the two forms of the prayer 
lepend upon one original form and one original 
translation, and it is just as certain that St. Luke 
could not have known the prayer as the customary 
congregational prayer in the communities with 
which he was acquainted, otherwise he would not 
nave revised its language so drastically. The form 
transmitted to him contained only the vocative πάτερ 
(cf. St. Paul) and the so-called fourth, fifth, and 
sixth petitions. All the other clauses found in St. 
Matthew are either accretions which attached them- 
selves to the common prayer during the process of 
transformation into a solemn congregational prayer 
in the primitive Jewish Christian communities and 
under the dominating influence of the prayers of 
the Synagogue, or they were added by St. Matthew 
himself. With the correction δίδου compare St. 


INVESTIGATION OF THE TEXT 65 


Luke’s similar correction of St. Matt. v. 42. St. 
Matthew gives the prayer as it was meant to be, 
and as indeed it was, used daily; St. Luke gives it 
as an instruction in prayer, therefore the present 
tense. This also explains the substitution of τὸ 
καθ’ ἡμέραν for σήμερον, as to which it is to be 
noted that τ. καθ᾽’ ἡμέραν occurs elsewhere in the 
New Testament only in St. Luke (xix. 47; Acts 
xvii. 11). ᾿Οφείλημα was most probably distasteful 
to St. Luke because it belonged to the vulgar idiom— 
there is no doubt that it is the original word; ἡμεῖς 
is replaced by αὐτοί in order to avoid the threefold 
repetition of the same word (St. Luke is also fond 
of omitting the pronominal subject before the verb— 
vide supra on St. Matt. v. 44, 48, and elsewhere) ; 
καὶ yap also is a phrase that St. Luke uses elsewhere 
(vide supra on St. Matt. v. 46). The perfect ἀφήκαμεν 
is certainly as original as the ws (vide St. Matt. v. 23) ; 
St. Luke has here attenuated the full and important 
significance of the petition. Lastly, the interpolation 
of παντί (with participle instead of substantive) is 
also Lukan—vide supra on St. Matt. v. 42 and else- 
where. The question whether the amplification of 
the prayer is due to St. Matthew himself, or whether 
he adopted it in the form it had already taken in 
the Church (vide supra), is one that cannot be 
definitely settled (πάτερ ἡμῶν ὁ ἐν τ. ovp. seems to 
betray the style of St. Matthew). An original form 
(“ πάτερ" and the fourth, fifth, and sixth petitions) 
must have existed, and there is nothing to say 
against its having stood in Q. ‘The seventh petition 
like the first three has strong points of resemblance 
E 


66 THE SAYINGS OF JESUS 


with the prayers of the Synagogue, and it is certain 
that St. Luke would not have passed over this 
petition if it had existed in his exemplar. 


f 4 «ε A A % , 9 a 
αυρίζετε δὲ ὑμῖν θησ- αυρὸν ἀνέκλειπτον ἐν τοῖς 
αυροὺς ἐν οὐρανῷ, ὅπου οὐρανοῖς ὅπου κλέπτης 
οὔτε σὴς οὔτε βρῶσις οὐκ ἐγγιζει οὐδὲ σὴς 
᾿] ’ Ae. , ὃ , 
ἀφανίζει καὶ ὅπου κλέπ- ιαφθείρει. 
ται οὐ διορύσσουσιν οὐδὲ 
κλέπτουσιν. 


Taking also into consideration verse 19 of St. 
Matthew and verse 33? of St. Luke, it is at once 
seen that St. Matthew gives a saying which is com- 
plete in itself, while St. Luke adopts, as it were, only 
a reminiscence of this saying, which he binds up with 
the command to sell all things and give alms (¢f. his 
enthusiasm for this ideal in the Acts). Moreover, 
the phraseology and the selection of words betray the 
deliberate choice, and thus the secondary character of 
St. Luke. Διαφθείρειν (also φθείρειν) does not belong 
to the vocabulary of the gospels, but is classical ; the 
thief and the moth are not easily understood apart 
from St. Matt. vi. 19; ἐγγίζειν is a feeble word which 
St. Luke was fond of using (it is not found in St. 
John, occurs three times in St. Mark, six or seven 
times in St. Matthew, twenty-four times in St. Luke), 
and ἀνέκλειπτος also belongs to the language of 
literature (St. Luke loves such formations, cf xvii. 1: 
ἀνένδεκτος; xi. 46: δυσβάστακτος; Acts xxvii. 12: 
avevOeros). Accordingly, the plural οὐρανοῖς, which 
is much rarer in St. Luke than in St. Matthew, can 


INVESTIGATION OF THE TEXT 67 


alone be claimed for Q, wherein verse 19 must also 
have stood, as is shown by the dé of verse 20. Verse 
19 runs: μὴ θησαυρίζετε ὑ ὑμῖν θησαυροὺς ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς, 
ὅπου σὴς καὶ βρῶσις ἀφανίζει, καὶ ὅπου κλέπται 
διορύσσουσιν καὶ κλέπτουσιν. Only, if reference had 
been made to treasures upon earth, do the moth and 
the thief explain themselves. 


ΞΕ avVatt.. vil. 13: St. Luke = xi: 24: 
Hicé\Oare διὰ τῆς ἀγωνίζεσθε εἰσελθεῖν διὰ 
στενῆς πύλης" ὅτι πλα- τῆς στενῆς θύρας, ὅτι 
τεῖα Li πύλη] καὶ εὐρύχω- πολλοί, λέγω ὑμῖν, ζητή- 
ρος ἡ ὁδὸς ἡ ἀπάγουσα εἰς σουσιν εἰσελθεῖν καὶ οὐκ 
τὴν ἀπώλειαν, καὶ πολλοί ἰσχύσουσιν. 
εἰσιν οἱ εἰσερχόμενοι δι 

. “ “ἤ A 
αὐτῆς" (14) ort στενή 
e , A , « 

ἡ πύλη καὶ τεθλιμμένη ἡ 
e \ e τι ye 7 A 
ὁδὸς ἢ απαγουσαὰ εἰς τὴν 

, \ 9. 7 ἘΝ e 
ζωήν, Kat ὀλίγοι εἰσὶν οἱ 
εὑρίσκοντες αὐτήν. 


As in the former passage, so here St. Luke gives only 
an extract, wherein, however, he develops the teach- 
ing by means of ἀγωνίζεσθε and ζητήσουσιν (ἀγωνί- 
ζεσθαι, a classical word not found elsewhere in the 
gospels, though it occurs in St. Paul; St. Luke also 
writes ἐζητήσαμεν ἐξελθεῖν in Acts xvi. 10, and a 
ζητεῖν which is not given in St. Matthew is also 
found in St. Luke’s parallel to St. Matt. x. 39; with 
οὐκ ἰσχύειν; compare also St. Luke vi. 48, viii. 43, 
xiv. 6, xiv. 30, xvi. 3, xx. 26; Acts vi. 10, xxv. 7). 
The converse theory that St. Matthew here, and in 
vi. 19 f., has worked up a shorter text (Wellhausen), 


68 THE SAYINGS OF JESUS 


is absolutely incapable of proof. St. 


Luke has 


written θύρα for πύλη, because he omitted « the way,” 
so that θύρα would more naturally suggest itself. 
St. Luke thinks of the door of a house (vide also the 
following verse 25); Q and St. Matthew think of the 


gate of a city. 
St. Matt. vii. 16: azo 


τῶν καρπῶν ἐπιγνώσεσθε 
αὐτούς" μήτι συλλέγου- 
σιν ἀπὸ ἀκανθῶν στα- 
Ν ἢ .9 A , 
φυλὰς ἢ ἀπὸ τριβόλων 
(17) οὕτως πᾶν 
δένδρον ἀγαθὸν καρποὺς 


σῦκα; 


καλοὺς ποιεῖ, τὸ δὲ σαπρὸν 
δένδρον καρποὺς πονηροὺς 
(18) οὐ δύναται 
δένδρον ἀγαθὸν καρποὺς 
πονηροὺς οὐδὲ 
δένδρον σαπρὸν καρποὺς 
καλοὺς ποὶεῖν. 

ee also St. Matt. xii. 
33: ἢ ποιήσατε TO δέν- 
dpov καλὸν καὶ τὸν 
καρπὸν αὐτοῦ καλόν, 
ἢ π ποιήσατε τὸ δένδρον 
σαπρὸν καὶ τὸν καρπὸν 
αὐτοῦ σαπρόν' ἐκ γὰρ 
τοῦ καρποῦ τὸ δένδρον 

A 
γινώσκεται. 


ποιεῖ. 


ἐνεγκεῖν, 


St. Luke vi. 44, 43: 
Ψ , ᾿] a 
ἕκαστον δένδρον ἐκ τοῦ 
ἰδίου καρποῦ γινώσκε- 
+) 4 9 ς ~ 
ται ov yap ἐξ ἀκανθῶν 
, a “Ὧν 
συλλέγουσιν σῦκα, οὐδὲ 
ἐκ βάτου 
τρυγῶσιν. 
ἐστιν 


σταφυλὴν 
(48) οὐ[ γάρ] 
δένδρον καλὸν 
ποιοῦν καρπὸν σαπρόν, 
οὐδῈλ: [πάλιν] δένδρον 
σαπρὸν ποιοῦν καρπὸν 
καλόν. 


St. Matthew found the saying in two sources, and 
therefore gives it twice, probably intermingling the 


INVESTIGATION OF THE TEXT 69 


two forms. Which of the two sources is Q, is to be 
determined by comparison with St. Luke. (In regard 
to the order of the clauses—whether St. Luke verse 
44, stood before verse 43——-we are no longer in a 
position to say anything definite.) We may be sure 
that Q had the words ἐκ τοῦ καρποῦ τὸ δένδρον 
γινώσκεται (ἕκαστον was probably added by St. Luke— 
an interpolation of the same character as the πᾶς 
which he is so fond of inserting in the text—like- 
wise ἰδίου, which is, moreover, wanting in D). Also 
the rhetorical question of St. Matthew 16° is original ; 
St. Luke has often removed such rhetorical questions 
(vide supra on St. Matt. v. 46, 47). Βάτος is a more 
choice expression than τρίβολος» and is therefore 
secondary, and the Lukan distinction between 
συλλέγειν and τρυγᾶν is certainly appropriate, but 
for that very reason it can scarcely be original. 
St. Luke chose the singular σταφυλήν, because he had 
alsc replaced the plural τριβ. by the singular βάτος. 
The 17th verse of St. Matthew is wanting in St. 
Luke; the latter may have considered it superfluous. 
(It is nevertheless a Semitic practice to give positive 
and. negative expression to the same thought in 
adjacent clauses.) For οὐ δύναται... éveryxelv... 
ποιεῖν, St. Luke reads: οὐκ éorTw ... ποιοῦν. -. 
mowvv—this participial construction is Lukan; the 
evangelist probably also wished to avoid an infini- 
tive aorist and present in close connection. It is, 
moreover, noteworthy that neither ἤνεγκον nor any 
of its derivatives are found in St. Luke’s gospel. 
The singular καρπόν in St. Luke and St. Matt. 
xii. 83, together with the adjectives καλός and 


70 “THE SAYINGS. 


OF JESUS | 


campos (see likewise St. Matt. xii. 33) must have 


stood in Q. 


St. Matt. vii. 21: 
πᾶς ὁ λέγων μοι κύριε 
κύριε εἰσελεύσεται εἰς τὴν 
βασιλείαν τῶν οὐρανῶν, 
GAN’ ὁ ποιῶν τὸ θέλημα 
τοῦ πατρός μου τοῦ ἐν 

aes 5 
τοῖς οὐρανοῖς, 

(24) πᾶς οὖν ὅστις ἀκούει 
μου τοὺς λόγους τούτους 
καὶ ποιεῖ αὐτούς ὁμοιωθή- 
σεται ἀνδρὶ φρονίμῳ ὅ ὅστις 
φκοδόμησεν αὐτοῦ τὴν 
οἰκίαν τὴν πέτραν. 
(25) καὶ κατέβη ἡ βροχὴ 
καὶ ἦλθον οἱ ποταμοὶ καὶ 
ἄνεμοι καὶ 
προσέπεσαν τῇ οἰκίᾳ ἐκείνῃ, 
καὶ οὐκ ἔπεσεν" τεθεμελίωτο 
γὰρ ἐπὶ τὴν πέτραν. (26) 
καὶ πᾶς ὁ ἀκούων μου τοὺς 
λόγους τούτους καὶ μὴ 
ποιῶν αὐτοὺς ὁμοιωθήσεται 
ἀνδρὶ μωρῷ, ὅστις φκοδό- 

9 “ A 90 ae | 
μῆσεν αὐτοῦ THY οἰκίαν ἐπὶ 
τὴν ἄμμον. (97) καὶ 
κατέβη ἡ βροχὴ καὶ ἦλθον 


et. A + 
οὗ ποταμοὶ καὶ ἔπνευσαν 


5. ON 
ετι 


ε 
εσνευσαν Ot 


e wv Ἂν , 

Ol ἄνεμοι Kal προσέκοψαν 
ὯΣ cde / 9 U Niger 

Τῇ οἰκίᾳ εκεινῇ, καὶ ἔπεσεν, 


St. Luke vi. 
vii. 1: τί δέ με 
κύριε κύριε, καὶ οὐ ποιεῖτε 


ἃ λέγω; 


46—49 ; 


καλεῖτε 


(47) Tas οὖν ἐρχόμενος 
πρός με καὶ ἀκούων μου 
τῶν λόγων καὶ ποιῶν av- 

, e , Cen , 
τούς, ὑποδείξω ὑμῖν τίνι 
Ψ A δ᾽ vA , 
ἐστίν ὅμοιος. (48) ὁμοιὸς 
ἐστιν ἀνθρώπῳ οἰκοδο- 

»“"-ςἨ 3. 4 εἴ A 
μοῦντι οἰκίαν, ὃς ἔσκαψεν 

A 9. Ψ 4 32 
καὶ ἐβαάθυνεν καὶ ἔθηκεν 
θεμέλιον ἐπὶ τὴν πέτραν. 
πλημμύρης δὲ γενομένης 
προσέρηξεν ὁ ὁ ποταμὸς τῇ 
οἰκίᾳ ἐκείνη καὶ οὐκ ἴσχυσεν 
αὐτὴν διὰ τὸ 

“- ς “ 3 / 
καλῶς οἰκοδομῆσθαι αὐτήν. 
A 
(49) ὁ δὲ ἀκούσας Kat 
μὴ ποιήσας ὅμοιός ἐστιν 
ἀνθρώπῳ οἰκοδομήσαντι 
οἰκίαν ἐπὶ τὴν γῆν χωρὶς 
θεμελίου, ἣ προσέρηξεν ὁ 
4 A 
ποταμός, καὶ εὐθὺς συνέπε- 
σεν, καὶ ἐγένετο τὸ ῥῆγμα 
τῆς οἰκίας ἐκείνης μέγα. 


σαλεῦσαι 


INVESTIGATION 

Kal ἣν ἡ πτῶσις αὐτῆς 
μεγάλη. 

(vii. 28, viii. 5) καὶ 

ἐγένετο ὅτε ἐτέλεσεν ὁ 


OF THE TEXT ἢ 


(vii. 1) ἐπειδὴ ἐπλή- 
pocev πάντα τὰ ῥήματα 
αὐτοῦ. . εἰσῆλθεν εἰς 


ΚΚαφαρναούμ, 


TI “ A ’ , 

yoovs τοὺς λόγους Tov- 

9 , A 

τους. .. εἰσελθόντος δὲ 
9 ἌΡ ΩΝ , 

αὐτοῦ εἰς Καφαρναούμ ats 


It may be questioned whether St. Matt. vii. 21 and 
St. Luke vi. 46 are really derived from Q. The 
common source perhaps lies far in the background of 
time, and we may not with absolute certainty claim 
the verse for Q. If, however, an attempt is made to 
reconstruct Q, then ὁ λέγων μοι κύριε is, in respect of 
originality, certainly to be preferred to καλεῖν με κύριε; 
and «to do the will of my Father” to “my words.” 
St. Matt. 22, 23 and St. Luke xiii. 26, 27 are quite 
independent of one another (I have therefore refrained 
from printing these verses in the above passage), even 
though here also a common source lies far in the 
background. It is most probable that we have here 
genuine instances of translation-variants—compare 
ὁμολογήσω αὐτοῖς ὅτι οὐδέποτε ἔγνων ὑμᾶς" ἀποχω- 
ρεῖτε ἀπ᾿ ἐμοῦ οἱ ἐργαζόμενοι τὴν ἀνομίαν with 
λέγω ὑμῖν, οὐκ οἶδα πόθεν ἐστέ: ἀπόστητε ἀπ᾽ ἐμοῦ 
πάντες ἐργάται ἀδικίας. In regard to the parable 
which certainly stood in the common source, Well- 
hausen has remarked that in St. Luke it is more life- 
like, and that its reference to the different characters 
of the Christian community is more obvious and dis- 
tinct. Even if this were so, it would have little weight 
in determining the superior originality of St. Luke’s 


72 THE SAYINGS OF JESUS 


version. But I cannot share Wellhausen’s impression, 
except perhaps in the case of the very descriptive 
words: ὃς ἔσκαψεν καὶ ἐβάθυνεν καὶ ἔθηκεν θεμέλιον. 
St. Matthew often omits such descriptions, so that 
these words are perhaps original (yet, on the other 
hand, we have ground for hesitation in the fact that 
the first two verbs are found in the New Testament 
only in St. Luke; σκάπτειν again in xiii. 8 and xvi. 3; 
I shall, however, return to this point). As for the rest, 
the text of St. Matthew for the most part deserves 
the preference (with perhaps the exception of ὑποδείξω 
κτλ. in St. Luke, for this ὑποδείξω receives a certain 
attestation from another passage in Q, viz. St. Matt. 
111. 7 = St. Luke iii. 7, and is once again omitted by 
St. Matthew in x. 28, cf St. Luke xii. 5). The intro- 
duction of the parable accordingly ran perhaps some- 
what as follows: πᾶς οὖν ὅστις ἀκούει μου τοὺς 
λόγους τούτους καὶ ποιεῖ αὐτούς, ὑποδείξω ὑμῖν τίνι 
ἐστὶν ὅμοιος. ὅμοιός ἐστιν κτλ. And yet it may 
very well be that ὑποδείξω was inserted by St. Luke, 
and that the somewhat illogical future passive ὁμοιο- 
θήσεται has in this case a claim to originality. St. 
Matthew writes: πᾶς οὖν ὅστις ἀκούει καὶ ποιεῖ, St. 
ΟΤΚα in better Greek: πᾶς οὖν (ἐρχόμενος πρός με καὶ) 
ἀκούων καὶ ποιῶν. St. Matthew writes: ἀνδρὶ ὅστις 
φκοδόμησεν, St. Luke: ἀνθρώπῳ οἰκοδομοῦντι. St. 
Matthew, αὐτοῦ τὴν οἰκίαν, St. Luke ἴῃ better 
Greek: οἰκίαν. St. Matthew: καὶ κατέβη ἡ βροχή; 
St. Luke avoids the vulgar βροχή: and writes in the 
genitive absolute πλημμύρης γενομένης. St. Matthew 
thinks of storms of rain and wind, but to St. Luke it 
seemed improbable that these could overturn a house, 


INVESTIGATION OF THE TEXT 18 


and he therefore supplies a flooded river. For οὐκ 
ἴσχυσεν; as Lukan, vide supra on St. Luke xiii. 24. 
St. Matthew writes: πᾶς ὁ ἀκούων καὶ μὴ ποιῶν, St. 
Luke more correctly: ὁ δὲ ἀκούσας καὶ μὴ ποιήσας. 
St. Matthew writes: ἐπὶ τὴν ἄμμον, St. Luke—be- 
cause he saw that a man could build a house firmly 
even on sand—writes: ἐπὶ τὴν γῆν χωρὶς θεμελίου. 
As these words are certainly added by St. Luke, it is. 
therefore improbable that the «ἔθηκεν θεμέλιον 
occurring in a former verse stood in Q. This, 
however, also renders “« ἔσκαψεν καὶ ἐβάθυνεν " very 
doubtful. The original parable simply distinguished 
between the house on the rock and the house on the 
sand, just as St. Matthew gives it. The thought that 
a good foundation depends upon labour is first intro- 
duced by St. Luke, and was suggested by the words 
in Q: τεθεμελίωτο ἐπὶ τὴν πέτραν, where, however, 
the emphasis rests upon πέτραν. Why indeed should 
St. Matthew have omitted this trait if he had found 
it in his exemplar? On the other hand, it is quite 
intelligible that the simple contrast of “rock and 
sand” did not seem sufficient to a later writer, who 
reflected that still everything depended upon the 
laying a good foundation, whatever the nature of 
the soil might be. Moreover, συμπίπτειν is certainly 
less original than the simple πίπτειν, and it is very 
clear that the words speaking of a great breach are a 
correction; for “the falling was great” is a solecism. 
In St. Matthew φρόνιμος and μωρός alone cannot be 
claimed for Q; for μωρός is exclusively confined to St. 
Matthew among the four evangelists (occurring seven 
times in the first gospel), and φρόνιμος also occurs in 


14 THE SAYINGS OF JESUS 
this gospel seven times (never in St. Mark, twice in 
St. Luke). 


It is a most important point that St. Matt. vii. 28 
and viii. 5 have a parallel in St. Luke vii. 1; for 
from this it follows with certainty that even in Q 
large portions of the Sermon on the Mount occurred 
together, and that the Sermon was followed by the 
Cure of the Centurion’s Servant in Capernaum. But 
both evangelists have altered the wording here; for 
ἐγένετο ὅτε ἐτέλεσεν is a phrase that is often repeated 
by St. Matthew (vide xi. 1, xili. 53, xix. 1, xxvi. 1), 
and the genitive absolute (εἰσελθόντος αὐτοῦ), which is 
added, likewise shows the secondary character of the 
text of St. Matthew at this point. But the Lukan 
text is shown to be secondary by ἐπειδή (never 
occurring in St. Matthew, St. Mark, and St. John; 
five times, however, in St. Luke’s gospel and Acts), 
as well as by πάντα τὰ ῥήματα (never occurring in 
St. Matthew, St. Mark, and St. John; thrice again in 
St. Luke). There seems, therefore, no hope of recover- 
ing the original wording of the source before the 
words εἰσῆλθεν εἰς ΚΚαφαρναούμ. 


Sti Matt.) viii b= St. Luke vii. 1—1022233 


Εἰσελθόντος δὲ αὐτοῦ 
>) A 
εἰς Καφαρναοὺμ προ- 
σῆλθεν αὐτῷ ἑκατόνταρ- 
χος παρακαλῶν αὐτὸν 
(6) καὶ λέγων" κύριε, ὁ 
a ’ 9 = 
mais μου βέβληται ἐν TH 
οἰκίᾳ παραλυτικός, δεινῶς 


βασανιζόμενος. () λέγει 


εἰσῆλθεν εἰς Καφαρ- 
ναούμ. (2) ἑκατοντάρ- 
χου δὲ τινος δοῦλος κακῶς 
ὕ ΕΣ Ἐν A 
ἔχων ἤμελλεν τελευτάν, ὃς 
5 9 ~ + ° , 
ἦν αὐτῷ ἔντιμος. (3) ἀκού- 
gas δὲ περὶ τοῦ ᾿]ησοῦ 
ἀπέστειλεν πρὸς αὐτὸν 
πρεσβυτέρους τῶν ᾿Ϊου- 


INVESTIGATION 


αὐτῷ" ἐγὼ ἐλθὼν θερα- 
, 93 , τι 
πεύσω αὐτὸν. (8) ἀποκρι- 
A 
θεὶς δὲ ὁ ἑκατόνταρχος 
Ν ’ὔ τς 9 A 
ey’ κύριε, οὐκ εἰμι 
ἱκανὸς ἵνα μον ὑπὸ τὴν 
στέγην εἰσέλθῃς" ἀλλὰ 
μόνον εἰπὲ λόγῳ, καὶ 
ἰαθήσεται ὁ παῖς μον. 
(9) Kal γὰρ ἐγὼ ἄνθρω- 
πός εἰμι ὑπὸ ἐξουσίαν, 
ἔχων ὑπ’ ἐμαυτὸν στρα- 
τιώτας,καὶ λέγω τούτῳ" 
πορεύθητι, καὶ πορεύε- 
A ΝΜ + 
Tat, Kat ἄλλῳ’ ἔρχου, 
καὶ ἔρχεται, καὶ τῷ 
’, ’ 
δούλῳ μον" ποίησον 
τοῦτο, καὶ ποιεῖ. (10) 
9 , A e ᾽ “ 
ἀκούσας δὲ ὁ ᾿]Ιησοῦς 
ἐθαύμασεν καὶ εἶπεν 
τοῖς ἀκολουθοῦσιν" ἀμὴν 
λέγω ὑμῖν, οὐδὲ ἐν τῷ 
cd | 5 ‘ , , 
gTpanX τοσαύτην Tic- 
τιν εὗρον. 
(13) καὶ εἶπεν ὁ ᾽Ιησοῦς 


τῷ ἑκατοντάρχῃ ὕπαγε, 
ὡς ἐπίστευσας γενηθήτω 


σοι" καὶ ἰάθη ὁ παῖς ἐν τῇ 
ὥρᾳ ἐκείνῃ. 


ΟΕ THE TEXT 


15 


δαίων, ἐρωτῶν αὐτὸν ὅπως 
ἐλθὼν διασώσῃ τὸν δοῦλον 
αὐτοῦ. (4) οἱ δὲ παρα- 
γενόμενοι πρὸς τὸν ᾿]1η- 
σοῦν παρεκάλουν αὐτὸν 
σπουδαίως, λέγοντες ὅτι 


ΕΝ ’ 9 i , 
ἀξιός ἐστιν ᾧ παρέξῃ 
τοῦτο. (5) ἀγαπᾷ γὰ ip 


τὸ ἔθνος ἡμῶν καὶ τὴν 
συναγωγὴν αὐτὸς φκοδόμη- 
σεν ἡμῖν. (6) ὁ ὁ δὲ ᾿Ιησοῦς 
ἤδη 
\ ς A " ‘ " 
δὲ αὐτοῦ οὐ μακρὰν ἀπέ- 
XovTos ἀπὸ τῆς οἰκίας, 
ἔπεμψεν φίλους ὁ ἑκατον- 
τάρχης λέγων αὐτῷ" κύριε, 
A , " Ν ε 

μὴ σκυλλου" οὐ yap ἰκα- 
vos εἰμι ἵνα ὑπὸ τὴν 

’ " / 

στέγην μου εἰσέλθης" 
(7) διὸ οὐδὲ ἐμαυτὸν ἠξίωσα 
πρὸς σὲ ἐλθεῖν: ἀλλὰ 
3 A / ἈΠ 5 Γ 

εἰπὲ λόγῳ, καὶ ἰαθήτω 
e - A A 

ὁ παῖς μον. (8) καὶ yap 
9 A 5, , 9 

ἐγὼ ἀνθρωπὸς etme 
e A 9 , , 
ὑπὸ ἐξουσίαν τασσό- 
μενος, ἔχων ὑπ᾽ ἐμαυτὸν 
στρατιώτας, καὶ λέγω 
τούτῳ" πορεύθητι, καὶ 

, A 5᾽ 

πορεύεται, καὶ ἄλλῳ: 
ἔρχου, καὶ ἔρχεται, καὶ 
τῷ δούλῳ μου: ποίησον 
τοῦτο, καὶ ποιεῖ. (9) 


ἐπορεύετο σὺν αὐτοῖς, 


76 THE SAYINGS OF JESUS 

s , A é a e 
ἀκούσας δὲ ταῦτα ὁ 
Ιησοῦς ἐθαύμασεν av- 
τόν, καὶ στραφεὶς τῷ 
9 “. >) pane, ς 
ἀκολουθοῦντι αὐτῷ ὄχλῳ 
> ’ὔ e - oA 
εἶπεν᾽ λέγω ὑμῖν, οὐδὲ 
9 ~ ai A , 
ἐν τῷ lopandA Tocav- 
THY πίστιν εὗρον. 

(10) καὶ ὑποστρέψαντες 
Ε] A > ε , 
εἰς TOY οἶκον οἱ πεμφθέντες 
εὗρον τὸν δοῦλον ὑγιαί- 
γοντα. 


In this section at least it is obvious that all 
traits in St. Luke different from or in addition to 
St. Matthew do not proceed from Q, and that 
St. Matthew thus transmits the source in the more 
original form. The two deputations to our Lord 
(in place of the personal interview of the centurion) 
are a later addition. This is strikingly shown 
(1) by the fact that the long speech which St. Luke 
assigns to the friends is intelligible and appropriate 
only if it was spoken by the centurion himself, and 
(2) because also in St. John (iv. 46 ff.) the centurion 
(βασιλικός) comes himself. An attempt to distinguish 
between that portion of the additional matter in 
St. Luke which perhaps came to him through tradi- 
tion, and that for which he himself is solely re- 
sponsible, is under such circumstances unnecessary. 
I would only remark that ἔντιμος (verse 2), of παρα- 
γενόμενοι (verse 4), σπουδαίως (verse 4), μακρὰν 
ἀπέχειν (verse 6), διό (verse 7), ἀξιοῦν (verse 7), the 
passive τάσσεσθαι (verse 8) are, as far as the gospels 


INVESTIGATION OF THE TEXT eS 


are concerned, exclusively Lukan (διό alone occurs 
once in St. Matthew); and, again, that it is in the 
style of St. Luke to supply objects to the verbs 
(cf; St. Matthew verse 10 and St. Luke verse 9), 
and likewise to add τὶς (cf St. Matthew verse 5 and 
St. Luke verse 2). Again, διασώζειν can be claimed 
as Lukan, as well as the alternation between ἀπέσ- 
τείλεν (verse 3) and ἔπεμψεν (verse 6), and the 
pleonastic στραφείς (verse 9). It cannot be shown 
that St. Matthew has altered the text of Q (note 
among other things the éys of verse 7, which is so 
characteristic of Q); moreover, traces of this text 
still appear throughout St. Luke’s version, even at 
the beginning of the narrative where the trans- 
formation is so complete (vide also παῖς of St. Luke 
verse 7, while δοῦλος is used in verse 2). Thus τοῖς 
ἀκολουθοῦσιν (St. Luke, τῷ ἀκολουθοῦντι αὐτῷ ὄχλῳ) 
is also original, probably also the ἀμήν. With the 
μὴ σκύλλου of St. Luke verse 6, compare St. Luke 
viii. 49 (St. Mark v. 35). The concluding verse 
has a completely different form in St. Matthew and 
St. Luke. Later I shall give what I believe to be 
sufficient justification for the bold hypothesis that 
this verse did not stand inQ. Here I would only 
point out that St. Matt. viii. 13 is almost exactly 
like St. Matt. xv. 28 (Canaanitish woman), while 
St. Luke winds up the passage with a conclusion 
of conventional character. 


Sie Matt. wii. 11: St. Luke xiii. 28, 29: 
Λέγω δὲ ὑμῖν ὅτι πολλοὶ ἐκεῖ ἔσται ὁ κλαυθμὸς 
ἀπὸ ἀνατολῶν καὶ δυσ- καὶ ὁ βρυγμὸς τῶν 


78 THE 


μῶν ἥξουσιν καὶ ἀνακ- 
λιθήσονται μετὰ ’AP- 
αὰμ καὶ ᾿Ισαὰκ καὶ 
Ἰακὼβ ἐν τῇ βασι- 
λείᾳ τῶν οὐρανῶν' 
; A εχ ~ 

(12) of δὲ υἱοὶ τῆς βασι- 
λείας ἐκβλήθήσονται 
9 , 9 Ἁ 
[ἐξελεύσονται] εἰς τὸ 
σκότος τὸ ἐξώτερον' ἐκεῖ 
5 « Ἁ εὐ ἡ 
ἔσται ὁ κλαυθμος καὶ ὁ 
βρυγμὸς τῶν ὀδόντων. 


SAYINGS OF JESUS 


ὀδόντων, ὅταν ὄψεσθε 

᾿Αβραὰμ καὶ ’Ioaak 
A ; A Α Ul 

καὶ ᾿Ιακὼβ καὶ πάντας 

τοὺς προφήτας ἐν τῇ 


βασιλείᾳ τοῦ θεοῦ, ὑμᾶς 
δὲ ἐκβαλλομένους ἔξω. 
(29) καὶ ἥξουσιν ἀπὸ 
ἀνατολῶν καὶ δυσμῶν 
A 9 2.4 ~ A , 
καὶ [ἀπὸ] Poppa καὶ νότου, 
καὶ ἀνακλιθήσονται ἐν 
τῇ βασιλείᾳ τοῦ θεοῦ. 


If we represent the order of the component 
clauses of St. Matthew's version of the saying by 
the series 1, 2%, 2”, 2°, 3, 4, then the order of St. 
Luke is given by the series 4, 2°, 2°, 3, 1, 2%, 2% It 
is here evident that 4 occupies a false position at 
the beginning, for ἐκεῖ is thus out of connection (it does 
not connect with xiii. 27); hence 4 after 3, the 
order of St. Matthew, is original; 2° (ἐν τῇ βασιλείᾳ 
τ. 8.) occurs twice in St. Luke, which of itself shows 
that 2° belong together, and that 2? (καὶ ανακλιθή- 
σονται) is thus in place at the beginning, coming 
after 1. The order of St. Matthew is accordingly 
original. ‘The change of order in St. Luke is due 
to the transposition of 4 (éxé: κτλ.) to the beginning, 
for which the reason is not obvious. This required 
further transpositions and also the interpolation of 
ὄψεσθε (so that the thought of the passage now 
reminds us of the Rich Man in Hades). Iavras 
tous προθήτας is also secondary; also ὄψεσθε with 
double accusative is Lukan. If in St. Matthew, 


INVESTIGATION OF THE TEXT 79 


ἐξελεύσονται is the right reading, as is probable, 
it is then the translation of the Aramaic N’phag, 
which acts as the passive to Appeg (é«BadXewv)—vide 
Wellhausen; but St. Luke here has not given a new 
and better translation of the Aramaic word, but 
has simply replaced the poor Greek ἐξελεύσονται 
by ἐκβαλλομένου. The phrase εἰς τ σκότος τ. 
ἐξώτερον occurs in the New ‘Testament only in 
St. Matthew, and that thrice (vide xxii. 13, xxv. 30). 
Here also it is inserted by the evangelist, who again 
probably introduced πολλοί at the beginning (else- 
where it is not unusual for St. Luke to supply subjects 


to subjectless verbs). 


On the other hand, Borras and 


Notos certainly belong to the Hellenic evangelist. 


[St. Matt. x. 7: πορευό- 
A , , 
μενοι δὲ κηρύσσετε λε- 
γοντες ὅτι ἤγγικεν ἡ 
βασιλεία. τῶν οὐρανῶν. 
(19) εἰσερχόμενοι δὲ εἰς 
τὴν οἰκίαν ἀσπάσασθε aw 
τήν: (18) καὶ ἐὰν μὲν ἢ ἡ 
3 F > , > ’ e 5 , 
οἰκία ἀξία, ἐλθάτω ἡ εἰρήνη 
ὑμῶν ἐπ᾽ αὐτήν" ἐὰν δὲ μὴ 
4 δῷ; ς τ Ἄγ αἴ κα A 
ἢ ἀξία, ἡ εἰρήνη ὑμῶν πρὸς 
ὑμᾶς ἐπιστραφήτω. 
(24) οὐκ ἔστιν μαθητὴς 
e A A , κι 
ὑπερ TOV διδάσκαλον οὐδὲ 
δοῦλος ὑπὲρ τὸν κύριον 
>) “ 9 Ἁ ~ 
αὐτοῦ. (25) ἀρκετὸν Tw 
μαθητῇ, ἵνα γένηται ws ὁ 
διδάσκαλος αὐτοῦ, καὶ 
δοῦλος ὡς ὁ κύριος αὐτοῦ. 


On 


[St. Luke ix. 2: ἀπέσ- 


A 
TelAEvy αὐτοὺς κηρύσσειν 
A , ~ ~ A 
τὴν βασιλείαν τοῦ θεοῦ καὶ 
tac Oar], 


(x. 5): εἰς ἣν δ᾽ ἂν εἰσέλ- 
θητε οἰκίαν, πρῶτον λέ- 
γετε᾽ εἰρήνη, τῷ οἴκῳ 

, 4 oN a 93 -“- 
τούτῳ. (6) καὶ ἐὰν ἢ ἐκεῖ 
υἱὸς εἰρήνης, ἐπαναπαήσεται 
ἐπ᾽ αὐτὸν ἡ εἰρήνη ὑμῶν" εἰ 
δὲ μήγε, ἐφ᾽ ὑμᾶς ἀνα- 
κάμψει. 

(vi. 40): οὐκ ἔστιν 

A e A A ’ 
μαθητὴς ὑπὲρ τὸν διδάσ- 
A 
καλον' κατηρτισμένος δὲ 

πε » e e , 
πᾶς ἔσται ὡς ὁ διδάσκαλος 
αὐτοῦ. 


80 THE SAYINGS OF JESUS 


St. Luke has transformed the direct discourse of 
St. Matt. x. 7 into narrative. The words καὶ ἰᾶσθαι 
are a Lukan interpolation, as is suggested by the fact 
that our Lord’s work of healing is the chief point of 
interest with St. Luke. He also delights to give 
special emphasis to the Mission of the disciples. 
Again, the record that the Kingdom was the sub- 
ject of their preaching is of later character than 
the tradition that it consisted of the proclamation 
«“ ἤγγικεν." It is, however, very questionable whether 
we are at all justified in assigning this clause to Q. 

The conjunctive relative (St. Luke x. 5) is a con- 
struction which is very frequent in St. Luke, belonging 
to the characteristics which distinguish his style from 
those of the other evangelists, with whom it is of rare 
occurrence. Eicé\Onre is a grammatical improve- 
ment upon εἰσερχόμενοι. St. Luke has also avoided 
ἀσπάζεσθαι in St. Matt. v. 47; he substitutes the 
words of the greeting itself, deriving them from what 
follows. It is also undoubtedly due to later reflexion 
that the worthiness of a single inhabitant of the 
house replaces the worthiness of the whole house. 
Moreover, St. Luke elsewhere uses the phrases, “sons 
of light” (xvi. 8), “of this generation” (/.c. and xx. 
34), « of consolation ” (Acts iv. 36), “ of the Resurrec- 
tion ” (St. Luke xx. 36). Nothing similar is found in 
St. Matthew. “A ξίος, used absolutely, is also found in 
St. Matt. x. 11 and xxii. 8; St. Luke has avoided 
it (on linguistic grounds rightly). ᾿Επαναπαήσεται 
(for ἐλθάτω ἐπ’ αὐτήν) is found again in the New 
Testament only in Rom. ii. 17, and shows by the 
repeated preposition that it is alien to the simple 


INVESTIGATION OF THE TEXT 81] 


language of the source. St. Luke reads εἰ for ἐάν, as 
(vide supra) in St. Matt. v. 46, 47 (εἰ is rare in Q). 
The middle ἐπιστρέφεσθαι is avoided by St. Luke in 
the gospel and the Acts (see, on the other hand, 
St. Matt. ix. 22; St. Mark νυ. 30, viii. 33; St. John 
xxi. 20); it probably belonged to the vulgar idiom. 
In St. Matt. x. 24 f., St. Luke seems to me to have 
omitted the clause concerning the lord and the 
servant because it was superfluous and sounded quite 
trivial. That the second half of the verse in St. Luke 
proceeds from the same source as St. Matthew, is 
shown by the words ὡς ὁ διδάσκαλος αὐτοῦ, It is 
therefore impossible to accept Wellhausen’s theory 
that we have here_an instance of faulty translation 
from the Aramaic, and that was must be taken 
adverbially ( = perfectly). St. Luke has often inserted 
qas, and the reason why he has here made such drastic 
changes is easily seen. Verse 25 in St. Matthew (2. 
in the source) sounded as if every scholar could 
without difficulty become as his master; St. Luke 
somewhat pedantically wished to make such an in- 
ference impossible. Also κατηρτισμένος, which does 
not occur elsewhere in the gospels, though indeed in 
St. Paul (Rom. ix. 22; 1 Cor. i. 10; 2 Cor. xiii. 11; 
cf. Heb. xi. 3), is a word of somewhat choice char- 
acter, and hence points to the style of St. Luke. 
᾿Αρκετόν occurs once again in St. Matt. vi. 34, 
otherwise not in the New Testament (St. Matt. vi. 34 
also comes probably from Q, but the parallel is want- 
ing in St. Luke). The text of St. Matthew in this 
passage shows no trace of secondary elements. Even 
the ἤγγικεν of verse 7 is original; the narrative form 
F 


82 THE 


SAYINGS OF JESUS 


of the parallel verse in St. Luke made it not very 
easy to include this word, vide supra. 


St: Matt. x 27: ὁ 
λέγω ὑμῖν ἐν τῇ σκοτίᾳ, 
εἴπατε ἐν τῷ φωτί" καὶ ὃ 
εἰς τὸ οὖς ἀκούετε, κηρύ- 
ἕατε ἐπὶ τῶν δωμάτων. 
(28) καὶ μὴ φοβεῖσθε a ἀπὸ 
τῶν 
σῶμα, τὴν δὲ ψυχὴν μὴ 
δυναμένων ἀποκτεῖναι" φο- 
βεῖσθε δὲ μᾶλλον τὸν 
δυνάμενον καὶ ψυχὴν καὶ 
σῶμα ἀπολέσαι ἐν γεέννῃ. 
(29) οὐχὶ δύο στρουθία 


. ’ a Vow 
ἀσσαρίου πωλεῖται; καὶ ἕν 


μ᾿ 


ἀποκτεννόντων τὸ 


ἐξ αὐτῶν οὐ πεσεῖται ἐπὶ 
τὴν γῆν ἄνευ τοῦ πατρὸς 
ὑμῶν. (30) ὑμῶν δὲ καὶ αἱ 
τρίχες τῆς κεφαλῆς πᾶσαι 
>] , Hat A 
ἠριθμημέναι εἰσίν. (31) μὴ 
οὖν φοβεῖσθε: πολλῶν 

, , e “ 
στρουθίων διαφέρετε ὑμεῖς. 
(99) πᾶς οὖν ὅστις ὁμολο- 
γήσει ἐν ἐμοὶ ἔμπροσθεν 
τῶν ἀνθρώπων, ὁμολογήσω 
κἀγὼ ἐν αὐτῷ ἔμπροσθεν 
τοῦ πατρός μου τοῦ ἐν 

΄“ 9 a 4 

τοῖς οὐρανοῖς. (33) oars 
δὲ ἀρνήσηταί me ἔμπροσθεν 
τῶν ἀνθρώπων, ἀρνήσομαι 


St. Luke xii. 3: ὅσα ἐν 
τῇ σκοτίᾳ εἴπατε, ἐν τῷ 
φωτὶ ἀκουσθήσεται, καὶ ὃ 

A A i > , 93 
πρὸς τὸ οὖς ἐλαλήσατε ev 
τοῖς ταμείοις, κηρυχθήσεται 
“- ~ , , 
ἐπὶ τῶν δωμάτων. (4) λέγω 
δὲ ὑμῖν τοῖς φίλοις μου, 
μὴ φοβηθῆτε ἀπὸ τῶν 
ἀποκτεννόντων τὸ σῶμα 
καὶ μετὰ ταῦτα μὴ ἐχόντων 
περισσότερόν τι ποιῆσαι" 
(5) ὑποδείξω δὲ ὑμῖν τίνα 
φοβηθῆτε: φοβήθητε τὸν 
μετὰ τὸ ἀποκτεῖναι ἔ χοντα 
9 , ’ “ κ] 4 
ἐξουσίαν ἐμβαλεῖν εἰς THY 
γέενναν" val, λέγω ὑμῖν, 
τοῦτον φοβήθητε. (6) οὐχὶ 
πέντε στρουθία πωλοῦνται 
’ ’ , ee 3 
ἀσσαρίων δύο; καὶ ἕν ἐξ 

πως 9 Μἷ »ἤ 

αὐτῶν οὐκ ἐστιν ἐπιλελησ- 
μένον ἐνώπιον τοῦ θεοῦ. 
(7) ἀλλὰ καὶ ai τρίχες τῆς 
κεφαλῆς ὑμῶν πᾶσαι ἠρίθ- 
μηνται. μὴ φοβεῖσθε" πολ- 
λῶν στρουθίων διαφέρετε. 
(8) λέγω δὲ ὑμῖν, πᾶς ὃς 
ΠῚ e ᾿ - 4 
ἂν ομολογήση ἐν ἐμοὶ 
4 “ 9 , 

ἔμπροσθεν τῶν ἀνθρώπων, 
καὶ ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου 


\ 


INVESTIGATION OF THE TEXT _ 88 


9 A en | a? A e , > See 

Kayo αὐτὸν ἔμπροσθεν τοῦ ὁμολογήσει ἐν αὐτῷ ἔμ- 

πατρός μου τοῦ ἐν τοῖς προσθεν τῶν ἀγγέλων τοῦ 

9 “ “Ἢ e A " 7 

οὐρανοῖς. θεοῦ. (9) ὁ δὲ ἀρνησά- 
μενός Me ἐνώπιον τῶν 
5] , 2 , 
ἀνθρώπων απαρνηθήσεται 
ἐνώπιον τῶν ἀγγέλων τοῦ 
θεοῦ, 


Wellhausen recognises, in his remarks on St. 
Matthew verse 7, that St. Luke is here secondary. 
Probably he wished that our Lord should not appear 
as a mystagogue.—As he had already used εἴπατε 
in the protasis he wrote ἀκουσθήσεται in the apodosis, 
and then he was again obliged to alter ἀκούετε and 
to replace it by ἐλαλήσατε ; moreover, ἀκούειν with 
εἰς TO ods offended his sense of style as an uncouth 
construction; St. Luke substitutes the more correct 
λαλεῖν πρὸς τὸ ods. Again, ὅσα is more correct 
than 6. Then κηρύξατε is changed into κηρυχθήσεται 
parallel to ἀκουσθήσεται. Finally, the contrast, « ear 
and housetop,” was too grotesque for the Hellenic 
artist; he therefore softened it by interpolating « in 
the secret chambers.” 

Coming to St. Matthew verse 28, we see that the 
λέγω ὑμῖν τοῖς φίλοις μου can scarcely be original. 
St. Luke felt the faulty connection of the two verses, 
and therefore begins a new paragraph; moreover, 
“ φίλοι" is a characteristic word which belongs both 
to the Lukan and the Johannine writings. Μὴ 
φοβηθῆτε is more elegant than μὴ φοβεῖσθε (St. Luke 
has allowed the present in St. Matthew verse 31 to 
stand). St. Luke says nothing concerning «the 


84 THE SAYINGS OF JESUS 

slaying of the soul”; it is not clear for what reason 
(he also omits «the soul” in verse 5). I conjecture 
that “the slaying of the soul” was a monstrous idea to 
the Hellenic evangelist (and besides περισσότερόν τι 
betrays the Lukan style). The ὑποδείξω of St. Luke 
may be original, but need not be so (vide on St. 
Matt. vii. 24); it stands in place of μάλλον, which 
is incorrect Greek. Again, ἀπολέσαι ἐν γεέννη is bad 
Greek; St. Luke substitutes ἐμβαλεῖν εἰς. By the 
repetition of λέγω and φοβήθητε at the close of the 
verse, St. Luke yet again points to its importance. 
Naturally this emphasis is not original. 

The existence of the variants, “two sparrows for 
a farthing” and “five sparrows for two farthings” 
(verse 29*), is an enigma. Had sparrows become 
cheaper? In 29° no one will doubt that St. Matthew 
has the original text. This is shown also in the 
phraseology: ἐνώπιον is peculiar to St. Luke among 
the synoptists (it does not occur in St. Matthew 
and St. Mark), and οὐκ ἔστιν ἐπιλελησμ. is the 
language of literature. St. Matthew's πατὴρ ὑμῶν 
for θεός (vide supra on St. Matt. vi. 26) is alone 
secondary. : 

In St. Matthew verse 30, St. Luke’s arrangement 
of the words is grammatically more correct, but that 
of St. Matthew better suits the sense, and is accord- 
ingly more original ; ἠρίθμηνται is of course a cor- 
rection for ἠριθμημέναι εἰσίν. St. Luke replaces the 
weak δέ by the stronger word ἀλλα. 

In St. Matthew verse 31, Wellhausen is right in 
asserting that we have here an instance of false 
translation from the Aramaic (πολλῶν in place of 


INVESTIGATION OF THE TEXT = 85 


πολλῷ): but the error already occurred in Ὁ, for 
St. Luke also gives a similar text. The pronominal 
subject (ὑμεῖς) is omitted by St. Luke, as is so often 
the case. The οὖν in St. Matthew is doubtful. 

St. Matt. 32 f.: St. Luke again marks the new 
thought by introducing the words λέγω δὲ ὑμῖν. 
«Son of Man,” which he reads in his version of verse 
82, cannot be original; for in verse 33 he also has the 
«I” (like St. Matthew in both places). However, 
ἔμπροσθεν τ. ἀγγέλων is certainly original (vide St. 
Mark viii. 38); here again we find support for the 
theory that St. Matthew has probably often inserted 
the phrases, “my Father which is in heaven,” «the 
Father which is in heaven,” into his source. In 
verse 33 both the participle ὁ ἀρνησάμενος as well 
as ἐνώπιον and ἀπαρνηθήσεται (for ἀρνήσομαι κἀγὼ 
αὐτόν) are Lukan (St. Luke uses the passive more 
frequently than the other evangelists). 


St. Matt. x. 34: μὴ Sic. Τακκᾶς Πρ ΒῈ: 


νομίσητε ὅτι ἦλθον βαλεῖν 
εἰρήνην ἐπὶ τὴν yw οὐκ 
ἦλθον βαλεῖν εἰρήνην ἀλλὰ 
μάχαιραν. (35) ἦλθον γὰρ 
διχάσαι ἄνθρωπον κατὰ 
3 Gs 
τοῦ πατρὸς αὐτοῦ 
θυγατέρα κατὰ τῆς μητρὸς 
αὐτῆς καὶ νύμφην κατὰ τῆς 
πενθερᾶς αὐτῆς. [(37) ο 
ιλῶν πατέρα ἢ μητέρα 
ὑπὲρ ἐμὲ οὐκ ἔστιν μου 
ἄξιος" καὶ ὁ φιλῶν υἱὸν ἢ 


A 
ἘΠΕ 


δοκεῖτε ὅτι εἰρήνην παρε- 
γενόμην δοῦναι ἐν τῇ γῇ; 
οὐχί, λέγω ὑμῖν, ἀλλ᾽ ἢ 
διαμερισμόν. (59) διαμερ- 
ἰισθήσονται πατὴρ ἐπὶ υἱῷ 
καὶ υἱὸς ἐπὶ πατρί, μήτηρ 
ἐπὶ θυγατέρα καὶ θυγάτηρ 
ἐπὶ τὴν μητέρα, πενθερὰ 
ἐπὶ τὴν νύμφην αὐτῆς καὶ 
νύμφη ἐπὶ τὴν πενθεράν. 
[(xiv. 26) εἴ τις ἔρχεται 


πρός με καὶ οὐ μισεῖ τὸν 


86 THE SAYINGS OF JESUS 


θυγατέρα ὑπὲρ ἐμὲ οὐκ 
x 4 
ἔστιν μου ἀξιος.] 


a r 

(38) καὶ ὃς ov Aau Pave 
τὸν σταυρὸν αὐτοῦ καὶ 
τ aru , τὰ 
ἀκολουθεῖ ὀπίσω μου, οὐκ 
Ε + 
ἔστιν μου ἄξιος. 

(99) ὁ εὑρὼν τὴν ψυχὴν 
αὐτοῦ ἀπολέσει αὐτήν, καὶ 
e “ , 4 A 
ὃ amoAccas τῆν ψυχὴν 
αὐτοῦ ἕνεκεν ἐμοῦ εὑρήσει 
αὐτήν. 

(40) ὁ δεχόμενος, ὑμᾶς 
ἐμὲ δέχεται, καὶ ὁ ἐμὲ 

τὴ 
δεχόμενος δέχεται τον 
ἀποστείλαντα με. 


9 “ 4 
πατέρα αὐτοῦ καὶ τὴν 
μητέρα καὶ τὴν γυναῖκα καὶ 
τὰ τέκνα καὶ τοὺς ἀδελ- 
φοὺς καὶ τὰς ἀδελφάς, ἔ ἔτι 
τε καὶ τὴν ἑαυτοῦ ψυχήν, 
οὐ δύναται εἶναί μου μαθη- 

, 

TIS. | 
. “ 
(xiv. 27) ὅστις οὐ βασ- 

| 4 A Α a] 
τάζει τὸν σταυρὸν ἑαυτοῦ 

A 
καὶ ἔρχεται ὀπίσω μου, οὐ 

/ > ν᾿, 
δύναται εἶναί μου μαθητής. 

ee tA A 
(xvii. 33) ὅς ἐὰν ζητήσῃ 

Α 4 9 a 

τὴν ψυχὴν αὐτοῦ περι- 
. ’ 
ποιήσασθαι ἀπολέσει av- 

t A δ᾽ NX τ , 
τήν, ὃς ἂν ἀπολέσει 
ζωογονήσει αὐτήν. 

e " , e A 
(x. 16) ὁ ἀκούων ὑμῶν 

3 ~ 9 , 4 ε 9 “ 
ἐμοῦ ἀκούει, καὶ ὁ ἀθετῶν 
e ΄“ 9 A 3 aA e A ὌΝ 
ὑμᾶς ἐμὲ ἀθετεῖ" ὁ δὲ ἐμὲ 
" A 3 A Ἁ ς 
ἀθετῶν ἀθετεῖ τὸν ἀποσ- 

, Lf 
TeihavTa με. 


In St. Matthew verse 34, we find that St. Luke has 


again inserted λέγω ὑμῖν. 


Μὴ νομίσητε ὅτι ἦλθον 


occurs also in St. Matt. v. 17; δοκεῖτε is found in Q 
(St. Matt. xxiv. 44=St. Luke xii. 44); yet there is 
some doubt whether this verse belongs to Q. As, 
however, St. Luke has here the interrogative form, 
which he has often obliterated elsewhere, we must 
decide in his favour. Εἰρήνην δοῦναι ἐν τῇ γῇ is 
certainly an improvement in style; παρεγενόμην is a 
choicer word than ἦλθον, and διαμερισμόν (here only 


INVESTIGATION OF THE TEXT 87 


in the New Testament) than μάχαιραν; lastly, the 
arrangement of the words in St. Luke shows more 
artistic skill. The same stands good of St. Matthew 
verse 85=St. Luke verse 53: διαμερισμός was the 
cause of the substitution of διαμερισθήσονται for 
ἦλθον διχάσαι (the latter word is wanting in the 
LXX, and may also have been disliked by St. Luke) ; 
πατὴρ ἐπὶ υἱῷ Kal υἱὸς ἐπὶ πατρὶ is more correct than 
the awkward ἄνθρωπον κατὰ τοῦ πατρὸς αὐτοῦ. For 
symmetry St. Luke also repeated the “mother and 
daughter,” and the “mother-in-law and daughter-in- 
law.” 

It is difficult to come to a definite decision con- 
cerning the relationship of St. Matthew verse 37 to 
St. Luke xiv. 96. It may be doubted whether Q is 
here the common source, however certain it is that 
some such source lies in the ultimate background. 
It is probable that St. Luke is strongly influenced by 
St. Mark x. 29, that μισεῖν, and likewise ἔτι τε καὶ 
(τε is Lukan), must be assigned to him, that he has 
formed the conclusion of this verse after the pattern 
of the one which follows, and that St. Matthew has 
preserved the text of Q unaltered. (This may also 
be true of St. Matthew verse 36, which is not printed 
above: καὶ ἐχθροὶ τοῦ ἀνθρώπου [vide ἄνθρωπος in 
verse 35] of οἰκιακοὶ αὐτοῦ. St. Luke omitted the 
whole verse because it seemed to him quite super- 
fluous after verse 35.) 

The saying of St. Matthew verse 38, occurs twice 
in both St. Matthew and St. Luke and once in St. 
Mark. ‘The two forms printed above are derived 
from a single source, since they are both negative in 


88 THE SAYINGS OF JESUS 


form, while the other three begin with ef τις θέλει. 
Again it is the original form of the negative version 
which occurs in St. Matthew: this evangelist writes 
és, while St. Luke, in better Greek, writes ὅστις.» the 
former speaks of “taking” the cross, St. Luke of 
« bearing ” (“ taking,” of course, is intended to mean 
«bearing”). St. Matthew writes pleonastically (ac- 
cording to Semitic idiom) ἀκολουθεῖν ὀπίσω, St. Luke 
corrects it into ἔρχεσθαι ὀπίσω. On each occasion 
St. Luke writes οὐ δύναται εἶναί μου μαθητής for οὐκ 
ἔστιν μου ἄξιος. One understands how the former 
phrase could have taken the place of the latter, but 
not how the latter could have replaced the former 
(concerning the avoidance of ἄξιος, vide supra on St. 
Matt. x. 13). 

The saying of St. Matt. x. 39 is one of the two 
sayings of our Lord which is found in all four gospels 
(twice in St. Matthew and St. Luke). St. Matt. xvi. 
25 and St. Luke ix. 26 are derived from St. Mark viii. 
35; thus St. Matt. x. 39 and St. Luke xvii. 33 come 
from Q (in all the six versions the expression a7oA- 
λύειν τὴν ψυχήν is found). 

St. Luke here uses the words περιποιεῖσθαι (vide 
Acts xx. 28; 1 Tim. iii. 13) and ζωογονεῖν (vide Acts 
vii. 19; 1 Tim. vi. 13), which are wanting elsewhere 
in the gospels—they are doubtless secondary; in sense 
they are identical with cwCew—that is, with the Aramaic 
“ahi” (vide Wellhausen). Moreover, the ζητήσῃ of 
St. Luke is very suspicious; for in St. Matt. vii. 13 
(St. Luke xiii. 24) this evangelist has again inter- 
polated ζητήσουσιν. St. Luke evidently regarded the 
expression τὴν ψυχὴν εὑρεῖν as not clear enough; St. 


INVESTIGATION OF THE TEXT 89 


John also has replaced it by φιλεῖν τὴν ψυχήν. Only 
we are surprised to find that in this verse St. Matthew 
has the participle and St. Luke the finite verb (with 
ὃς ἐάν); elsewhere almost always the reverse is the 
case. St. Luke was probably influenced by his ver- 
sion of St. Mark which he had given previously in 
ix. 24. “Evexey ἐμοῦ is interpolated by St. Matthew 
(from St. Mark). 

St. Matt. x. 40: The second half of this saying is 
the other of the two utterances of our Lord which are 
found in all four gospels. In St. Mark ix. 37 we find 
the saying concerning the reception of the little child 
(in whom Jesus Himself is received), which concludes: 
καὶ ὃς ἂν ἐμὲ δέχηται; οὐκ ἐμὲ δέχεται ἀλλὰ τὸν 
ἀποστείλαντά we. Upon this passage are dependent 
St. Matt. xviii. 5 (but without the second half) and 
St. Luke ix. 48: καὶ ὃς ἂν ἐμὲ δέξηται; δέχεται τὸν 
ἀποστείλαντά με. In the three other passages (the 
two printed above and St. John xiii. 20: ὁ λαμβάνων 
av τινα πέμψω ἐμὲ λαμβάνει, ὁ δὲ ἐμὲ λαμβάνων 
λαμβάνει τὸν πέμψαντά μὲ) the reference is to the 
reception of those who preach the gospel. The 
agreement of St. Matthew and St. John in this 
saying (St. Matthew δέχεσθαι and ἀποστεῖλαι, St. 
John λαμβάνειν and πέμψαι ---- genuine translation- 
variants) suggests the conclusion that St. Luke has 
here arbitrarily altered and amplified. The motive 
is clear from the slight alteration made by St. John. 
In St. Matthew (Q) the saying applies to the reception 
of the direct apostles of our Lord. This application 
no longer suited the circumstances of a later time, 
and more particularly of the Diaspora. Therefore 


90 THE SAYINGS OF JESUS 


we read in St. John ὁ λαμβάνων ἄν τινα πέμψω, and 
St. Luke changes “ reception ” into “ hearing ” (in the 
sense of “obeying”), with its contrast “setting at 
nought.” For ἀθετεῖν in St. Luke, vide 1 Thess. iv. 
8: ὁ ἀθετῶν οὐκ ἄνθρωπον ἀθετεῖ ἀλλὰ τὸν θεόν (and 
St. Luke vii. 30: τὴν βουλὴν τοῦ θεοῦ ἠθέτησαν) ; for 
the thought in St. Luke, vide Acts ix. 4: Σαούλ, τί 
με διώκεις. It is thus proved that in the two last 
verses of this section the Lukan text is again secondary, 
although, owing to the marked difference between 
St. Matt. x. 40 and St. Luke x. 16, it must remain 
doubtful whether this very widely circulated saying 


occurred in Q. 


St. Matt. xi. 2: Ο de St. Luke vii. 18, 19: 
Ἰωάννης ἀκούσας ἐν τῷ καὶ ἀπήγγειλαν ᾿Ιωᾶννει of 
δεσμωτηρίῳ τὰ ἔργα τοῦ μαθηταὶ αὐτοῦ περὶ πάντων 
Χριστοῦ, πέμψας διὰ τούτων. καὶ προσκαλεσά- 
τῶν μαθητῶν αὐτοῦ μενος δύο τινὰς τῶν μα- 
εἶπεν αὐτῷ" θητῶν αὐτοῦ ὁ Ἰωάννης 

ἔπεμψεν πρὸς τὸν 
κύριον λέγων' 


St. Luke has already told us (iii. 20) that St. John 
the Baptist had been imprisoned, it was not therefore 
necessary to mention this again; but something of the 
sort must have been mentioned in Q; hence the ev τῷ 
δεσμωτηρίῳ of St. Matthew is original. «To hear 
the works” is an awkward expression—on the other 
hand, the corresponding passag of St. Luke is of the 
conventional type; likewise, πέμψαι διά gives an im- 
pression of greater originality than the προσκαλε- 
σάμενος (ἔπεμψεν) of the formal gospel style. Lastly, 


INVESTIGATION 


OF THE TEXT 91 


the interpolation of τινὲς and ὁ κύριος is Lukan, and 
the repetition of the name John shows that the version 


in verse 18 is not original. 


preserved the text of Q. 
pee Matt. αν 905": 


> ‘ 5, Ud e 
Eav ἔχητε πίστιν ὡς 
, 9 A 
κόκκον σινάπεως, ἐρεῖτε 
~ .“᾿ , , 
τῷ Ope τούτῳ" μετάβα 
3 a A 
ἔνθεν ἐκεῖ Kal μεταβήσεται" 


St. Matthew has thus 


St. Luke xvii. 6: εἰ 
ἔχετε πίστιν WS κόκκον 
σινάπεως; ἐλέγετε ἂν τῇ 
συκαμίνῳ. (ταύτῃ): ἐκριζ- 
ὦθητι καὶ φυτεύθητι ἐ ἐν τῇ 
θαλάσσῃ" καὶ ὑπήκουσεν 
ἂν ὑμῖν. 


St. Luke, as is often the case, has written εἰ for 


97 
εαν. 


The commentators recognise that St. Luke has 


replaced “the mountain” by “the fig tree”—a re- 
miniscence of the “ Cursing of the fig tree,” which he 


omitted. 
St. Matt. xviii. 12: τί 


ὑμῖν δοκεῖ; ἐὰν γένηταί 
τινι ἀνθρώπῳ ἑκατὸν 
πρόβατα καὶ πλανηθῇ ἕν 
ἐξ αὐτῶν, οὐχὶ ἀφήσει 
ae Hires BIN 
τὰ ἐνενήκοντα ἐννέα ἐπὶ 
τὰ ὄρη καὶ πορευθεὶς 
ζητεῖ τὸ πλανώμενον; ᾽ (13) 
καὶ ἐὰν γένηται εὑρεῖν 
αὐτό, ἀμὴν λέγω ὑμῖν, ὅτι 
χαίρεῖ ἐπ᾽’ αὐτῷ μᾶλλον 
ak a A ’ , 9 , 
ἢ ἐπὶ τοῖς ἐνενήκοντα ἐννέα 
τοῖς μὴ πεπλανημένοις. 


St. Luke xv. 4: 
ἄνθρωπος ἐξ ὑμῶν ἔχων 
ἑκατὸν πρόβατα καὶ 

9 9 “ “a ’ 
ἀπολέσας ἐξ αὐτῶν ἕν OU 
ἐνενή- 


’ 
TLS 


καταλείπει Ta 
κοντα ἐννέα ἐν τῇ ἐρήμῳ 
oe 
καὶ πορεύεται ἐπὶ τὸ 
ἀπολωλὸς ἕως εὕρῃ αὐτό; 
(5) καὶ εὑρὼν ἐπιτίθησιν 
τοὺς ὦμους αὐτοῦ 
χαίρων, (6) καὶ ἐλθὼν εἰς 
τὸν οἶκον συνκαλεῖ τοὺς 
φίλους καὶ τοὺς γείτονας, 
λέγων αὐτοῖς" συνχάρητέ 


iY 
ἐπὶ 


92 THE SAYINGS OF JESUS 


[2 eo A , 
μοι, OTL εὗρον TO πρόβα- 
τόν μου τὸ ἀπολωλός. (7) 
λέγω ὑμῖν ὅτι οὕτως χαρὰ 
ἔσται ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ ἐπὶ ἑνὶ 
ἁμαρτωλῷ μετανοοῦντι ἢ 
ἐπὶ ἐνενήκοντα ἐννέα δικαί- 
ους, οἵτινες οὐ χρείαν ἔχου- 
σιν μετανοίας. 


St. Matthew has the principal interrogative clause 
in the apodosis; St. Luke by using the participial 
construction (as so often) makes the whole into one 
interrogative sentence. The former is original, like- 
wise the awkward γίνεσθαι (St. Luke ἔχειν). The 
ἐξ ὑμῶν of St. Luke is out of good connection. St. 
Luke writes ἀπολέσας for πλανηθῃ» because with his 
construction he was compelled to avoid the change 
of subject. KartaXeire is an evident correction for 
the clumsy ἀφήσει. "Emi τὰ ὄρη and ἐν τῇ ἐρήμῳ 
might be regarded as translation-variants, if it were 
probable from other passages that St. Luke had 
knowledge of the Aramaic original of Q; St. Luke 
has here replaced the special by the more general 
term. Again, he writes τὸ ἀπολωλός, because he 
had already written ἀπολέσας; St. Matthew gives τὸ 
πλανώμενον (in accordance with the πλανηθῇ of his 
text). Tlopevera: ἐπὶ τό is good Greek for πορευθεὶς 
ζητεῖ. The un-Hellenic phrase ἐὰν γένηται εὑρεῖν 18 
replaced by the correct εὑρών. Here, therefore, the 
text of St. Luke is shown to be everywhere secondary. 

St. Luke verse 6, and indeed the principal part 
of verse 5, have no parallel in St. Matthew. ‘They 


INVESTIGATION OF THE TEXT 93 


may have stood in Q, and St. Matthew may have 
omitted them because they only give colour and finish 
to the parable; however, nothing certain can be said 
upon the point. ΣΣυνκαλεῖν is found eight times in 
the New Testament, including seven times in St. 
Luke; also “neighbours” (St. Luke xiv. 12, xv. 9) 
and « friends” have a Lukan flavour; συνχαίρειν is 
in the gospels exclusively Lukan (i. 58, xv. 9); and 
TO ἀπολωλός cannot have stood in Q, seeing that in 
a preceding verse it has been traced to St. Luke’s 
correcting hand. 

St. Matthew verse 13: Here the λέγω ὑμῖν, which 
also stands in St. Luke verse 7, is important, because 
it shows that this asseveration also occurred in Q; it 
does not, however, follow from this that it is always 
original when it is given by St. Matthew or St. Luke. 
St. Matthew asserts that the owner rejoices more 
over the one sheep than over the ninety-nine that 
had not wandered; St. Luke gives the spiritual 
application and interpolates the idea of repentance 
(vide mnfra St. Luke xvii. 3, 4= St. Matt. xviii. 21, 22). 
There is no doubt as to which of these versions is the 
original. ‘Thus here also St. Matthew has the ancient 
text. 


St. Matt. xviii.15:’Kav 
δὲ ἁμαρτήσῃ ὁ ἀδελφός 
σου, ὕπαγε ἔλεγξον αὐτὸν 


A lal A 9 lal 
μεταξὺ σου και αὐτου 


’ 9. 9 
μόνου. ἐὰν σου ἀκούσῃ, 
᾽ y A ᾿ , 
ἐκέρδησας τον ἀδελφόν 

σου. 


St. Luke xvii. 3: ἐὰν 
ἁμάρτη ὁ ἀδελφός σου, 
aie, Lae a 
ἐπιτίμησον αὐτῷ, καὶ ἐὰν 
μετανοήσῃ, ἄφες 
(4) καὶ ἐὰν ἑπτάκις τῆς 
ἡμέρας ἁμαρτήσῃ εἰς σὲ 
καὶ ἑπτάκις ἐπιστρέψῃ 


>] ~ 
aUTO, 


94 THE SAYINGS OF JESUS 


\ A ’ A 
πρὸς σὲ Acywv' μετανοῶ, 
ἀφήσεις αὐτῷ. 

4 
(21) τότε προσελθὼν ὁ 
Πέτρος εἶπεν αὐτῷ" κύριε, 
ποσάκις ἁμαρτήσει εἰς ἐμὲ 
ὁ ἀδελφός μου καὶ ἀφήσω 
? “ Ψ ς , 
αὐτῷ; ἕως ἑπτάκις; (22) 
, 9 a e ᾽ “ 9 
λέγει αὐτῷ ο ᾿Ϊησοῦς" οὐ 
, 
λέγω σοι ἕως ἑπτάκις, 
Γ 
ἀλλὰ ἕως ἑβδομηκοντάκις 
ἑπτά. 


At the first glance the text in St. Luke, because it 
is the shorter, seems to be therefore the more original 
in form; as a matter of fact, it presents to a certain 
extent the longer form, and besides rests upon a confla- 
tion of ideas. It is the longer in that St. Luke alone 
gives τῆς ἡμέρας and speaks of repentance (just as in 
xv. 7), of which nothing is said in St. Matthew verses 
21 f. In St. Luke the point upon which emphasis is 
laid is the sinner’s repentance; while St. Matthew 
(6.6. Q) is concerned with the question of uncondi- 
tional forgiveness, not in the case of sins in general 
but in the case of personal injury. St. Luke confuses 
the two cases. Here, however, St. Matthew too is 
not original, for his version in verse 15 is already 
determined by the subject-matter of the following 
verses (16 and 17). The text must have run: ἐὰν 
ἁμαρτήσῃ (ἁμάρτῃ of St. Luke is a grammatical 
improvement) ὁ ἀδελφός σου, ἔλεγξον αὐτὸν (ὕπαγε 
belongs perhaps to the style of St. Matthew; the rare 
ἔλεγξον is certainly more original than the frequent 


INVESTIGATION OF THE TEXT 98 


ἐπιτίμησον). The saying is, however, still imperfect, 
hence we cannot do without the following clause: 
ἐάν σου ἀκούσῃ ἐκέρδησας τὸν ἀδελφόν cov. 

The other saying in St. Matthew verses 21 and 
22 is quite independent of the previous one which 
St. Luke has blended with it. The absolutely 
un-Hellenic construction of its clauses, the equally 
un-Hellenic ἕως, and the ἑπτά (for ἑπτάκις) at the 
close, are enough to prove its originality—although 
the introduction of St. Peter may be secondary. 
The ἑβδομηκοντάκις ἑπτά probably seemed to St. Luke 
too paradoxical. 


St. Matt. xix. 28: ὑμεῖς St. Luke xxii. 28, 30: 
of ἀκολουθήσαντές μοι... ὑμεῖς δέ ἐστε οἱ διαμεμενη- 
καθίσεσθε ἐπὶ δώδεκα κότες μετ᾽ ἐμοῦ ἐν τοῖς 
θρόνους κρίνοντες τὰς πειρασμοῖς μου... καὶ 
δώδεκα φυλὰς τοῦ Ἰσραήλ. καθήσεσθε ἐπὶ θρόνων κρί- 

νοντες τὰς δώδεκα φυλὰς 
”~»> , 
TOU Ἰσραήλ. 


It is obvious that the introduction in St. Matthew 
is more original—hbesides, διαμένειν only occurs once 
again in the gospels, and that in St. Luke (i. 22); 
and the plural πειρασμοί is not found anywhere else 
in the gospels, though it occurs in Acts xx. 19. The 
rest is identical in the two versions; the number 
“twelve,” twice repeated, must be regarded as 
original. 


St. Matt. xxiii. 4: St. Luke xi. 46: καὶ 
Δεσμεύουσιν δὲ φορτία ὑμῖν τοῖς νομικοῖς οὐαί: 
βαρέα καὶ ἐπιτιθέασιν ἐπὶ φορτίζετε τοὺς ἀνθρώπους 


96 THE SAYINGS OF JESUS 


ἄν Ἄρεος Fine 
Tous ὦμους τῶν ἀνθρώπων, 


9 A A ”~ 4 9 “Ἅ 
αὐτοὶ δὲ τῷ δακτύλῳ αὐτῶν 
3 “ . Γ 

οὐ θελουσιν κινῆσαι αὐτα. 


(13) ovat δὲ ὑμῖν, γραμ- 


“ 4 an 
ματεῖς καὶ Φαρισαῖοι ὑπο- 


[4 ᾽ A 
κριται, ὅτι κλείετε τῆν 
βασιλείαν τῶν οὐρανῶν 


SS A " , 
ἔμπροσθεν τῶν ἀνθρώπων' 
ὑμεῖς γὰρ οὐκ εἰσέρχεσθε 
οὐδὲ τοὺς εἰσερχομένους 
ἀφίετε εἰσελθεῖν. 

(23) οὐαὶ ὑμῖν, γραμ- 

- fr e 
ματεῖς καὶ Φαρισαῖοι ὑπο- 
κριταί, ὅτι ἀποδεκατοῦτε 

Are , A Re 
TO ἡδύοσμον καὶ TO ἄνηθον 
καὶ τὸ κύμινον, καὶ ἀφήκατε 
τὰ βαρύτερα τοῦ νόμου, 
τὴν κρίσιν καὶ τὸ ἔλεος 
καὶ τὴν πίστιν. 
ἔδει ποιῆσαι 
3 A 
ἀφεῖναι. 

(25) οὐαὶ ὑμῖν, γραμ- 
ματεῖς καὶ Φαρισαῖοι ὑπο- 
κριταί, ὅτι καθαρίζετε τὸ 
4 wn , A 
ἔξωθεν τοῦ ποτηρίου καὶ 
τῆς παροψίδος, ἔσωθεν δὲ 
γέμουσιν ἐξ ἁρπαγῆς καὶ 
akpacias.” 


A A 
TQAUTa δὲ 

’ a A 
κακεῖνα μὴ 


pop Tia δυσβάστακτα, καὶ 
αὐτοὶ ἑνὶ τῶν δακτύλων 
e ~ 
ὑμῶν οὐ προσψαύετε τοῖς 
φορτίοις. 
. 9 -4 COA “ 
ΧΙ]. 52: ovat υμῖν τοῖς 
a 4 “᾿ + 
νομικοῖς, OTL ἤρατε [exeTe] 
A A ~ 
τὴν κλεῖδα τῆς γνώσεως" 
3 Ά 9 9 ’ A 
αὐτοὶ οὐκ εἰσήλθατε καὶ 
A 
τοὺς εἰσερχομένους ἐκωλύ- 
σατε. 


42: οὐαὶ ὑμῖν τοῖς 
Φαρισαίοις, ὅτι ἀποδεκα- 
τοῦτε τὸ ἡδύοσμον καὶ τὸ 
πήγανον καὶ πᾶν λάχανον, 
καὶ παρέρχεσθε τὴν κρίσιν 
καὶ τὴν ἀγάπην τοῦ θεοῦ. 
[ταῦτα ἔδει ποιῆσαι κἀκεῖνα 
μὴ παρεῖναι.] 2 


xi. 39: νῦν ὑμεῖς οἱ 
Φαρισαῖοι τὸ ἔξωθεν τοῦ 
a 4 ~ , 
ποτηρίου καὶ τοῦ πίνακος 
καθαρίζετε, τὸ δὲ ἔσωθεν 
ὑμῶν γέμει ἁρπαγῆς καὶ 

πονηρίας. 


1 St. Matthew verse 26 and St. Luke verse 41 are not without 
connection, yet. do not lend themselves easily to comparison. In 
the first place, St. Luke 418 (οὐχ 6 ποιήσας τὸ ἔξωθεν καὶ τὸ ἔσωθεν 


INVESTIGATION 
[(27) oval ὑμῖν, γραμ- 


ματεῖς καὶ Φαρισαῖοι ὑπο- 
κριταί, ὅτι παρομοιάζετε 
τάφοις κεκονιαμένοις͵ οἵτινες 
ἔξωθεν μὲν φαίνονται 
ὡραῖοι, ἔσωθεν δὲ γέμουσιν 
ὀστέων νεκρῶν καὶ πάσης 
ἀκαθαρσίας. 

(29) oval ὑμῖν, γραμ- 
ματεῖς καὶ Φαρισαῖοι ὑπο- 
κριταί, ὅτι 

τοὺς τάφους τῶν προφητῶν 
καὶ κοσμεῖτε τὰ μνημεῖα 
τῶν δικαίων, (30) καὶ λέ- 
γετε εἰ ἤμεθα ἐν ταῖς 
ἡμέραις τῶν πατέρων ἡμῶν, 
οὐκ ἂν ἤμεθα αὐτῶν κοινω- 
νοὶ ἐν τῷ αἵματι τῶν προ- 
φητῶν, (91) ὥστε μαρτυ- 

RY Cece ily aL 
ρεῖτε ἑαυτοῖς OTL υἱοί ἐστε 
τῶν φονευσάντων τοὺς 
προφήτας. (82) καὶ ὑμεῖς 
πληρώσατε τὸ μέτρον τῶν 
πατέρων ὑμῶν. 


οἰκοδομεῖτε 


97 


ata | e A Φ 
οὐαὶ υμῖν, ὅτι 


OF THE TEXT 
[xis 44: 


9 4 e A A A 
ἐστε WS TA μνημεῖα τὰ 
ΕΣ A Crs e 
ἄδηλα, Kat of ἄνθρωποι οἱ 
~ 9 , 

περιπατοῦντες ἐπάνω οὐκ 
+ 

οἴδασιν, 


9 4 \ ee. v4 
47: οὐαὶ ὑμῖν, ὅτι 

9 A Mi A 
οἰκοδομεῖτε τὰ μνημεῖα 


A “ e A 
τῶν προφητῶν, οἱ δὲ 
’ e ~ " , 
πατέρες ὑμῶν ἀπέκτειναν 
“ ’ + , 
avrous. (48) apa μαρ- 
, 9, A 
TUES ἐστε καὶ συνευδοκεῖτε 
A lA -- a 
τοῖς ἔργοις τῶν πατέρων 
e A Φ 9 A A >] ’ 
υμῶν, OTL AVTOL μὲν ἀπεκ- 
>) , e A A 
τειναν αὐτοὺς, υμεῖς δὲ 
9 A 
οἰκοδομεῖτε, 


ἐποίησεν) has not any parallel in St. Matt. 26; the same is the case 
with the vocative, Φαρισαῖε τυφλέ, of St. Matt. 26. Whether the 
words καθάρισον πρῶτον τὸ ἐντὸς τοῦ ποτηρίου and πλὴν τὰ ἐνόντα δότε 
ἐλεημοσύνην go back to one Aramaic source (wherein ‘‘ dakki” was 
confounded with ‘“zakki’”’) is doubtful. The latter halves of the 
verses, ἵνα γένηται καὶ τὸ ἐκτὸς αὐτοῦ καθαρόν and καὶ ἰδοὺ πάντα καθαρὰ 
ὑμῖν ἐστιν, are alone really related to one another. If, however, a 
single source was here really used, then St. Matthew has the more 
original text. 
G 


98 THE SAYINGS OF JESUS 


(34) διὰ τοῦτο ἰδοὺ ἐγὼ 
ἀποστελλω πρὸς ὑμᾶς 
προφήτας καὶ σοφοὺς καὶ 

9 
γραμματεῖς" ἐξ 
ἀποκτενεῖτε καὶ 


αὐτῶν 
σταυρώ- 
σετε καὶ ἐξ αὐτῶν μαστιγ- 
ώσετε ἐν ταῖς συναγωγαῖς 
ὑμῶν καὶ διώξετε ἀπὸ 
πόλεως εἰς πόλιν: (35) 
ὅπως ἔλθῃ ἐφ᾽ ὑμᾶς πᾶν 
αἷμα δίκαιον ἐκχυννόμενον 
ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς ἀπὸ τοῦ αἵμα- 
τος "Αβελ τοῦ δικαίου ἕως 
αἵματος Ζαχαρίου 
υἱοῦ Βαραχίου, ὃν ἐφονεύ- 
σατε μεταξὺ τοῦ ναοῦ καὶ 
(86) 
ἀμὴν λέγω ὑμῖν, ἥξει ταῦτα 
πάντα 


τοῦ 


τοῦ θυσιαστηρίου. 


A 
ἐπὶ τὴν γενεὰν 


ταύτην. 


49: διὰ τοῦτο καὶ 
ἡ Σοφία τοῦ θεοῦ εἶπεν" 
ἀποστελῶ εἰς αὐτοὺς προ- 
φήτας καὶ ἀποστόλους, καὶ 
ἐξ αὐτῶν ἀποκτενοῦσιν καὶ 
ἐκδιώξουσιν, (50) ¢ ἵνα ἐκζη- 
τηθῃ τὸ αἷμα πάντων τῶν 
προφητῶν τὸ ἐκχυννόμενον 
ἀπὸ καταβολῆς κόσμου 
ἀπὸ τῆς γενεᾶς ταύτης, 
(51) ἀπὸ αἵματος "Αβελ 
ἕως αἵματος Ζαχαρίου τοῦ 
ἀπολομένου μεταξὺ τοῦ 
θυσιαστηρίου καὶ τοῦ οἵ- 
κου" ναΐ, λέγω v υμῖν, ἐκζητη- 
θήσεται ἀπὸ τῆς γενεάς 
ταύτης. 


St. Matt. xxiii. 4: For δεσμεύειν φορτία; which 
is scarcely intelligible Greek, St. Luke has written 
φορτίζειν φορτία (of, in this evangelist, xvii. 24: 


ἀστραπὴ ἀστράπτουσα: 
ἐτίμησαν, Acts iv. 17: 
v. 28: 


Acts xxvii. 10: 
ἀπείλῃ ἀπειλησώμεθα, Acts 
παραγγελίᾳ παρηγγείλαμεν; St. Luke xxii. 
15: ἐπιθυμίᾳ ἐπεθύμησα, xxiii. 46: 


τιμαῖς 


φωνήσας φωνῇ 


[likewise Acts xvi. 28], vi. 8: ἀναστὰς ἔστη. Acts 


v. 4: μένον ἔμενεν, St. Luke ii. 8: 
The construction of 


φυλακάς). 


’ 
φυ λασσοντες 
. 
ορτί ζειν with a 


double accusative filled the place of ἐπιτιθέασιν.---- 


INVESTIGATION OF THE TEXT 900 


δυσβάστακτος is literary Greek and Lukan, vide 
supra the remarks on St. Matt. vi. 20=St. Luke 
xii. 99... ἑνὶ τ. δακτ. is a stylistic correction of, and 
lends emphasis to, τῷ δακτύλῳ.--- προσψαύειν (for 
κινεῖν), because it is a compound, is shown to be a 
correction.—In St. Luke this verse stands among 
the Woes against the scribes; this may be correct. 
St. Matthew introduced the verse into a description 
of the Pharisees which he had taken from a separate 
source, and so was able to arrange a list of seven 
Woes. And yet it may well have been otherwise 
(vide fra on verse 25); it is evident that in Ὁ 
part of the subject-matter occurred in a description 
of the Pharisees, part in the form of Woes.—Nowuxos 
is found six times in St. Luke, never in St. Mark, 
St. John, and St. Paul, once in St. Matthew (xxii. 35), 
but the latter occurrence is doubtful. The word, there- 
fore, certainly did not stand in the source; St. Luke 
has substituted it for « Pharisees,” or has combined 
it or used it alternately with the latter word (vide xi. 
39, 42, 43), perhaps in order to remind his un- 
instructed readers who the Pharisees were (cf Acts 
xxiii. 8 f.). The καί of St. Luke, verse 46, is 
probably to be counted original. 

St. Matt. xxiii. 13: The combination of scribes 
and Pharisees is also found four times in St. Luke 
(v. 30, vi. 7, xi. 53, xv. 2). If he had found it here 
he would certainly have given it in his text. Since, 
however, he writes νομικοί, we must suppose that 
only « Pharisees” stood in Q (vide supra on verse 4).— 
ὑποκριταί is much more frequent in St. Matthew 
than in St. Luke; and in St. Matt. xxiv. 51, St. 


100 THE SAYINGS OF JESUS 


Luke has replaced it by ἄπιστοι. Whether it stood 
in Q in the passages we are now considering cannot 
be certainly determined; probably Q ran: οὐαὶ ὑμῖν 
τοῖς Papiraiors.—It is obvious that “tc hold the key 
of knowledge” is the correction, and “to close the 
kingdom of Heaven” is the original; moreover, the 
verb εἰσέρχεσθαι does not suit well with γνῶσις, which 
word occurs only once again in the gospels, and that 
also in St. Luke (i. 77, γνῶσις cwrnpias)—St. Luke 
puts αὐτοί in the place of ὑμεῖς, for he does not 
like the personal pronominal subject expressed with 
the verb.—St. Luke gives the aorist εἰσήλθατε instead 
of the present because, as a matter of fact, the 
“lawyers” did not possess the yvao.s.—St. Luke 
omits yap because its connection with the context 
is not clear, and he simply writes ἐκωλύσατε instead 
of the circumstantial οὐκ αφίετε εἰσελθεῖν, just as 
in the case of St. Matt. v. 40 he replaces ἄφες αὐτῷ 
by μὴ κωλύσῃς (κωλύειν once in St. Matthew, 6 +6 
times in the Lukan writings). 

St. Matthew xxiii. 23: Concerning the intro- 
duction, compare what has been said above on 
verse 13.—“ Anise and cummin” (St. Matthew), 
«Rue and every herb” (St. Luke); the former is 
original (Nestle, « Expos. Times,” xv. 528; « Ztschr. 
f. Neutestamentl,” Wissensch. 1906, 5. 10, believes 
that cummin and rue correspond to NNAw and 
Ν 2 }).----τὰ βαρύτερα τοῦ νόμου is difficult of inter- 
pretation and seems to conflict with verse 4, ac- 
cording to which the very charge brought against 
the Pharisees is that they impose the heavy burden ; 
the words are therefore omitted by St. Luke.— 


INVESTIGATION OF THE TEXT i101 


παρέρχεσθε is a more elegant word than ἀφήκατε.--- 
It follows from éAceos —the middle of the three 
words in St. Matthew—that here conduct towards 
the neighbour is spoken of (Wellhausen); St. Luke, 
however, alters this and reads, «Ye pass by the 
judgment and the love of God.” The conclusion of 
the verse found in many manuscripts of St. Luke is 
an interpolation from St. Matthew. It can scarcely 
have stood in Q, for it is in accordance with the 
tendency of St. Matthew. Moreover, the preceding 
words καὶ τὴν πίστιν are very doubtful. 

St. Matt. xxiii. 25: Here, in contrast to St. 
Matthew verse 4, St. Matthew has the woe and 
St. Luke the simple description (vide supra); the 
νῦν», which is found only here, seems to be original ; 
St. Luke has substituted the more general word 
πίναξ (cf. St. Mark vi. 25) for παροψίς. He has also 
correctly interpreted the somewhat dubious ἔσωθεν by 
τὸ ἔσωθεν ὑμῶν; and has replaced ἀκρασία; which seemed 
too special a word here, by the more general πονηρία. 

St. Matt. xxiii. 27: Wellhausen thinks that the 
text of St. Matthew is here more diffuse and less 
original than that of St. Luke. But the sayings 
are absolutely different: in St. Matthew the Phari- 
sees are compared to _ whitewashed  sepulchres 
(whitened, in order that they might be seen of 
men); in St. Luke, on the other hand, they are 
compared to just the opposite, to sepulchres which 
cannot be seen. ‘The latter simile is only intelli- 
gible from Num. xix. 16: those who walked over 
the sepulchre were rendered unclean. The Jewish 
ordinance which lies at the background of the 


102 THE SAYINGS OF JESUS 


version in St. Luke vouches for the originality 
of this text. And yet the text of St. Matthew 
can scarcely be due to intentional alteration. If, 
however, we are not allowed to assume that both 
verses belonged to Q, then St. Luke must have 
the preference, seeing that St. Matthew verse 27 
does not carry us much farther than verse 25. Only, 
the more elegant and appropriate μνημεῖον (for 
τάφος) is due to the correcting hand of St. Luke 
(τάφος is not found anywhere in St. Mark and 
St. Luke)—see also the remarks on St. Matthew 
verse 29. 

St. Matt. xxiii. 29-32 = St. Luke xi. 47, 48. Does 
St. Luke here give an extract or the original? We 
may confidently affirm the former alternative, because 
of the cold, matter-of-fact tone of St. Luke’s version. 
Moreover, its secondary character is also shown by 
ἀποκτείνειν for φονεύειν and by cuvevdoxetv, which is 
peculiar to St. Luke and St. Paul (vide Acts viii. 1, 
xxii. 20; Rom. i. 32; 1 Cor. vii. 12, 13), as well as 
by μάρτυς, which occurs thirteen times in the Acts 
(μαρτυρεῖν is found in St. Matthew only in this 
passage). St. Luke also avoids ὥστε in the sense of 
wtaque. However, the scribes and Pharisees are inter- 
polated here by St. Matthew (vide Wellhausen on 
this passage) as well as the words καὶ κοσμεῖτε Ta 
μνημεῖα τῶν δικαίων. St. Matthew often concerns 
himself with «the righteous” (side by side with 
prophets and such like people). We, moreover, 
note that the prophets alone are mentioned after- 
wards. Again, verse 32 is perhaps original—cf. the 
clumsy phrase πληροῦν τὸ μέτρον τῶν πατέρων (on 


INVESTIGATION OF THE TEXT 108 


the other hand, verse 33 is an appendix which has 
been fashioned after the pattern of iii. 7). 

St. Matt. xxiii. 34-36. We discover from St. 
Luke alone that our Lord here quotes an authority 
which He regards as inspired. The fact that we 
do not know what this authority was, is no reason 
for asserting that the passage in question is not a 
quotation, especially seeing that we read εἶπεν (not 
the present), and that our Lord could not possibly 
have said, “I send prophets, wise men and scribes.” 
We can easily understand that the dislike to represent 
our Lord as quoting from an apocryphal book, or 
some other motive, led St. Matthew to erase the 
quotation formula (his ἰδού is, as it were, a substitute 
for what has been omitted, and dia τοῦτο has good 
sense only in St. Luke). That St. Luke has inter- 
polated here is inconceivable. St. Luke has made 
drastic corrections in detail. As usual, he has 
omitted ἐγώ before the verb; he has transformed 
the wise men and scribes’ into apostles! (just as 
in 1 Clem. 42, Deacons are interpolated); he has 
changed ἀποστέλλω into ἀποστελῶ (because of the 
conclusion of the discourse); he has inserted καί 
before ἐξ αὐτῶν (pr.); he has replaced διώκειν by 
ἐκδιώκειν, and the uncouth (Semitic) phrase ἔλθῃ ἐφ᾽ 
ὑμᾶς πᾶν αἷμα by ἐκζητηθῇ τὸ αἷμα πάντων (the 
passive is enough to betray his style, also ἐκζητεῖν 
occurs in St. Luke alone among the gospels), also 
ὅπως, as in several other passages, by wa. For ἐπὶ 


1 This word is certainly original, seeing that in the context of 
St. Matthew the γραμματεῖς are denounced, so that the evangelist 
himself could not have inserted them here. 


104 THE SAYINGS OF JESUS 


τῆς γῆς» which seemed superfluous, he has substituted 
ἀπὸ καταβολῆς κόσμου, words which seemed much 
less superfluous, and he has introduced yevea αὕτη 
from verse 51 in order to lend greater precision to 
the solemn asseveration of the close of that verse. 
As in St. Matt. xxiii. 31, he avoids φονεύειν, replacing 
ov ἐφονεύσατε by the participle τοῦ ἀπολομένου. 
Concerning the variants εἰς αὐτούς and πρὸς ὑμάς I 
have nothing to say, the two prepositions occur in 
parallel passages of the two evangelists without any 
recognisable reason for their variation. In σταὺυ- 
ρώσετε καὶ ἐξ αὐτῶν μαστιγώσετε ἐν ταῖς συναγωγαῖς 
ὑμῶν we probably have an addition by St. Matthew— 
cf. St. Matt. xx. 19, μαστιγῶσαι καὶ oTavp@cai—also 
ἀπὸ πόλεως εἰς πόλιν is probably interpolated in 
accordance with St. Matt. x. 23, likewise the two 
occurrences of “ δίκαιον ἢ, (vide supra on xxiii. 29); 
St. Luke reads, but scarcely correctly, πάντων τῶν 
προφητῶν. Concerning υἱοῦ Βαραχίου; I would point 
out (1) that it is not quite certain that these words 
are original in St. Matthew; (2) that as St. Luke 
does not read them, and as the gospel of the Hebrews 
according to St. Jerome’s testimony read © filium 
Joiade” [so also (in accordance with 2 Chron. 
xxiv. 20) a Greek scholion to St. Matthew], it is 
therefore very improbable that the words stood in 
@. What reason could St. Luke have had for 
omitting them? ‘Their historical control was not 
within his reach. We therefore here refrain from 
discussing what. Zacharias is meant by St. Matthew or 
his interpolator. ‘There is no reason for suspecting an 
historical hysteron-proteron. In place of the «'Temple 


INVESTIGATION OF THE TEXT 105 


and the Altar,” St. Luke writes with greater precision, 
«the Altar and the House (of the Temple).” Lastly, 
the vai of St. Luke shows that ἀμήν stood in Q; 
ἐκζητηθήσεται ἀπό is substituted for ἥξει ἐπί in 
order to take up the ἐκζητηθῇ of the previous 
verse; this led to the omission of ταῦτα πάντα; 
which words indeed do not express the sense very 
clearly in the context of St. Matthew (the subject 


to ἐκζητ. in St. Luke is τὸ αἷμα). 


The absence of 


τοῦ twice before αἵματος in St. Luke is probably 


original. 


St. Matt. xxiv. 26: 
"Ka > a e - = δ A 

ἂν οὖν εἴπωσιν ὑμῖν" δου 
>) AF , 9 ’ 4 ᾿] , 
ἐν τῇ ἐρήμῳ ἐστίν, μὴ ἐξελ- 
θητε" ἰδοὺ ἐν τοῖς ταμείοις, 

4 , [2 
μὴ πιστεύσητε" (27) ὥσπερ 
γὰρ ἡ ἀστραπὴ ἐξέρχεται 
ἀπὸ ἀνατολῶν καὶ φαίνεται 
ἕως δυσμῶν, οὕτως ἔσται ἡ 
παρουσία. τοῦ υἱοῦ τοῦ 
ἀνθρώπου" (28) ὅπου ἐὰν 
ἢ τὸ πτῶμα, ἐκεῖ συναχθή- 
σονται οἱ ἀετοί. 

xxiv. 37: "ὥσπερ γὰρ 
αἱ ἡμέραι τοῦ Νῶε, οὕτως 
ἔσται ἡ παρουσία τοῦ υἱοῦ 
τοῦ ἀνθρώπου. (38) ὡς 
γὰρ ἦσαν ἐν ταῖς ἡμέραις 


9 , a A nw 
[ἐκείναις] ταῖς πρὸ τοῦ 


κατακλυσμοῦ σπρῶγοντες 


‘ , “- 
και TLVOVTES, γάμουντες 


St. Luke xvii. 23: καὶ 
ὑμῖν: ἰδοὺ ἐκεῖ, 
ἰδοὸὺ ὧδε' μὴ ἀπέλθητε 
μηδὲ διώξητε, (24) ¢ ὥσπερ 
γὰρ ἡ ἀστραπὴ ἀστράπ- 
τουσα ἐκ τῆς ὑπὸ τὸν 


3 \ 4 Sy Cee Fe te 4 
ουρᾶνον εἰς την UT ουρανον 


ἐροῦσιν 


, ἌΡ. ε e\ 
λάμπει, οὕτως ἔσται ὁ υἱὸς 
τοῦ ἀνθρώπου ἐ ἐν τῇ ἡμέρᾳ 


αὐτοῦ. (37) ὅπου τὸ 
~ ~ 4 

σῶμα, ἐκεῖ καὶ οἱ ἀετοὶ 
ἐπισυναχθήσονται. 


(26) καὶ καθὼς ἐγένετο 
ἐν ταῖς ἡμέραις Noe, οὕτως 
ἔσται καὶ ἐν ταῖς ἡμέραις 
τοῦ υἱοῦ τοῦ ἀνθρώπου 
(27) ἤσθιον, ἔπινον, ἐγά- 
μουν, ἐγαμίζοντο, ἄχρι ἧς 
ς ’ δά το ~ . 
ἡμέρας εἰσῆλθεν Νῶε εἰς 

‘ , 1 9 e 
τὴν κιβωτόν, καὶ ἦλθεν ὁ 


106 


! a 
καὶ γαμίζοντες, ἄχρι ἧς 
ἡμέρας εἰσῆλθεν Νῶε εἰς 
τὴν κιβωτόν, (99) καὶ οὐκ 
2) (4 Oy « 
ἔγνωσαν ἕως ἦλθεν ὁ κατα- 
κλυσμὸς καὶ ἦρεν ἅπαντας, 
οὕτως ἔσται ἡ παρουσία 
τοῦ υἱοῦ τοῦ ἀνθρώπου. 

(40) τότε ἔσονται δύο 
ἐν τῷ ἀγρῷ, εἷς παραλαμ- 
βάνεται καὶ εἷς ἀφίεται. 
(41) δύο ἀλήθουσαι ἐν τῷ 

/ , , 
μύλῳ, μία παραλαμβάνεται 


THE SAYINGS 


OF JESUS 


8 Ai. 39 , 
κατακλυσμος καὶ ἀπώλεσεν 
’ 
πάντας. 


_ (84) λέγω ὑμῖν, ταύτῃ 
τῇ νυκτὶ ἔσονται. δύο ἐπὶ 
κλίνης μιᾶς, ὁ εἷς παρα- 
λημφθήσεται καὶ ὁ ἕτερος 
ἀφεθήσεται: (35) ἔσονται 


δύο ἀλήθουσαι ἐπὶ τὸ αὐτό, 
€ , Ῥ Δ e 

ἡ μία παραλημφθήσεται, ἡ 
ἜΤΕΙ , 9 , 

δὲ ἑτέρα ἀφεθήσεται. 


A , >] , 
καὶ μία ἀφίεται, 


Clauses with ἐάν may be presumed to have stood 
in Q; St. Luke often uses such clauses, and, again, he 
often alters them. As for the rest, it is difficult in 
St. Matt. xxiv. 26 to determine whether St. Luke 
has abbreviated or St. Matthew has amplified. The 
former alternative seems to me more probable, 
especially as διώκειν» used in this sense, is a word 
characteristic of St. Luke and St. Paul. In verse 27 
ἀστραπὴ ἀστράπτουσα is Lukan in style (vide note 
on St. Matt. xxiii. 4=St. Luke xi. 46); the rest 
of the clause in St. Matthew is also original (St. 
Luke guards against the idea that lightning only 
passes from east to west; cf a similar Lukan cor- 
rection of St. Matt. viii, 11=St. Luke xiii. 29). 
Also ἡ παρουσία must be regarded as the reading 
of @; it is indeed only found in St. Matthew, but 


INVESTIGATION OF THE TEXT 107 


with the exception of xxiv. 3 (which passage may 
also be derived from Q), only in places dependent 
upon Q (vide xxiv. 37, 39). St. Luke has avoided 
the word, which belonged to the sphere of Jewish 
Messianic dogma and was an unsuitable term for 
that Second Coming in which Christians believed 
and which is here referred to—vide Wellhausen on 
St. Matt. xxiv. 8. St. Luke’s λάμπει is a better 
word than φαίνεται; and is therefore a correction. 
Ἔν τῇ ἡμέρᾳ αὐτοῦ does not possess firm textual 
authority, but it is an indispensable element of 
St. Luke’s vocabulary—For the disagreeable word 
πτῶμα St. Luke has substituted the more elegant 
σῶμα; he has deleted ἐὰν ἢ, has given smoothness 
to the clause by the addition of καί, and has replaced 
συναχθ. by the double compound ἐπισυναχθ. 

St. Matt. xxiv. 37: On logical grounds St. Luke 
could not allow ὥσπερ ai ἡμέραι. .. οὕτως ἔσται 
ἡ παρουσία to remain unchanged (besides this he 
is not fond of asrep—on the other hand, he uses 
καθώς 16412 times, while in St. Matthew it 
occurs only three times). In regard to ἡ παρουσία 
St. Matthew is again in the right (vide supra on 
St. Matt. xxiv. 27). In place of the double com- 
parison (St. Matt. xxiv. 37 ff.)\—one element stating 
the theme which the other develops—St. Luke only 
gives a simple comparison. ‘The latter can scarcely 
be original; but St. Luke’s unoriginality is also 
shown by the imperfects. The use of the imperfect 
is a speciality of St. Luke, and shows his better 
feeling for the niceties of the Greek language. 
Moreover, éyauiCovro is an improvement upon 





108 THE SAYINGS OF JESUS 


γαμίζοντες (vide Wellhausen), and is thus a cor- 
rection. Here again, as before in other pages, we 
find that the shorter text of St. Luke is not original 
but a revision. It almost necessarily followed that 
St. Matthew verse 39* should fall a victim to the 
reviser’s pruning-knife, nor indeed do we lose much 
thereby. 

Wellhausen calls St. Matthew verse 40 a poor 
variant of St. Luke verse 34; but in comparing 
St. Matthew and St. Luke it often happens that the 
poorer version—.e. the version which is less good 
in logic and sense—is the original. Here, moreover, 
the motive which led to St. Luke’s alteration is 
quite clear. He wished by means of the examples 
given to express something which was not distinctly 
expressed in the original text—namely, that the 
Son of Man might come by night just as well as 
by day. Accordingly he changed τότε into ταύτῇῃ 
τῇ νυκτί and replaced ἐν τῷ ἀγρῷ by ἐπὶ κλίνης 
μιᾶς, again, he substituted for eis . . . εἷς -the 
better Greek ὁ cis . . . ὁ ἕτερος (likewise for μία 

. μία: the better Greek 7 μα ... 4 eTépa); 
lastly, he changed the present into the more correct 
future (so also in the following verse) and repeated 
the ἔσονται (in verse 35) which could not be dis- 
pensed with in correct composition. That the 
women grind “at the mill” (St. Matthew) was 
self-evident; it was not superfluous to mention 
that they grind ἐπὶ τὸ ai’rto. Hence St. Luke 
substitutes the latter phrase for the former. 


There are thus about fifty variants in the case 


INVESTIGATION OF THE TEXT 109 


of which we have found reason to question the 
originality of the text of St. Matthew; of these 
one-half coincide with the variants which we have 
characterised above (pp. 34 ff). The ἀμὴν λέγω 
ὑμῖν in v. 18 may be original, likewise the ἀμήν in 
v. 26, the ἐγὼ λέγω ὑμῖν in v. 32, and the ἀμήν in 
viii. 10 (vide supra). On the other hand, τοῦ ev 
οὐρανοῖς with πατρός (v. 45), οὐρανῷ in place of 
οὐρανοῖς (vi. 20), and ὁ πατὴρ ὑμῶν for ὁ θεός (x. 29), 
are not original. We find circumstantial phrases, 
like those we have noticed above, in προσελθών 
(iv. 3), ὁ δὲ ἀποκριθεὶς εἶπεν for ἀπεκρίθη (iv. 4), 
and τότε προσελθὼν ὁ Ilérpos εἶπεν αὐτῷ (xviii. 
21); we find interpolations in the “Pharisees and 
Sadducees” of chap. iii. 7, in the “scribes” in 
addition to the “Pharisees” of chap. xxiii. 23 
(together with the « hypocrites”), and the «scribes 
and Pharisees” of chap. xxiii. 29. «The righteous ” 
and “righteousness” also appear in these sections, 
vide v. 6 (“to hunger and thirst after righteous- 
ness”), xxiii. 29, 35 (bis), and probably also 
v. 45 (yet here “the righteous” may perhaps be 
original because of the parallelism). The ὕπαγε 
in all three cases of its occurrence (iv. 10, viii. 13, 
xviii. 15) is probably inserted by St. Matthew—-on 
the other hand, one cannot be quite certain whether 
the ὑποδείξω of St. Luke, which does not appear 
in St. Matt. vii. 24 and x. 28, is original or not; 
it seems to me more probable that St. Matthew is 
in the right. No importance is to be attached to 
the slight stylistic variants in chap. iv. 9 (πεσών add.), 
viii. 5 (gen. abs. for finite verb), viii. 11 (πολλοί add.), 


110 THE SAYINGS OF JESUS 


x. 31 (οὖν add.), xxiii. 4 (dé for καί), xxiii. 25 (νῦν 
om.), xxili. 35 (τὸν add. 62s). In these cases it is 
naturally impossible to give a definite verdict. It 
is probable that μὴ νομίσητε (x. 34), in place of the 
interrogative δοκεῖτε, is secondary (vide supra on 
δοκεῖν, St. Matt. iii. 9). Also the words μωρός and 
φρόνιμος» which expressly characterise the two builders 
of houses in chap. vii. 24, 26, are probably added 
by St. Matthew. 

Besides these instances there are, however, several 
others in which the modification of the text is of 
noteworthy, and at times of considerable, importance. 
In chap. iv. 11, at the conclusion of the story of the 
Temptation, the words “xat ἰδοὺ ἄγγελοι προσῆλθον 
καὶ διηκόνουν αὐτῷ " are inserted. Before this we find 
that the quotation, «Man doth not live by bread 
alone,” is continued (« but by every word, &c.,” iv. 4). 
In chap. viii. 12, « εἰς τὸ σκότος τὸ ἐξώτερον" is a 
formula current with St. Matthew (for the simple 
ἔξω). But of considerably greater importance are 
the following instances, wherein we trace distinct bias 
of various kinds :— 

1. Jerusalem is introduced as the “holy city” 
(iv. 5); here we recognise the bias of a Christian 
of Jerusalem (note, however, that the term does 
not occur in the reproduction of a discourse of our 
Lord). 

2. The addition in chap. xxili. 23 (ταῦτα ἔδει 
ποιῆσαι κἀκεῖνα μὴ παρεῖναι) displays a Jewish Chris- 
tian reverence for ceremonial precepts.’ 


1 The whole verse, xxiii. 27, is possibly an interpolation; one 
cannot come to a clear decision on this point. 


INVESTIGATION OF THE TEXT 111 


8. The conception of τέλειος is introduced into 
chap. v. 48 (cf the conception δίκαιος); a distinct 
ethical tendency is hereby indicated. 

4. In chap. v. 32, in reference to the question of 
divorce, an important limitation is given in the inter- 
polated phrase παρεκτὸς λόγου πορνείας. 

5. Another limitation is given in the τῷ πνεύματι 
(with of πτωχοί) of chap. v. 3. 

6. The omission of the enigmatical quotation 
formula (xxiii. 34): καὶ ἡ Σοφία τοῦ θεοῦ εἶπεν, 
seems necessarily to presuppose the dogmatic bias 
of one who refused to recognise an uncanonical 
writing. 

7. The substitution of «Father in heaven” for 
the « Angels of God” (x. 32, 33) is connected with 
the evangelist’s Christological position. 

8. The addition of ἕνεκεν ἐμοῦ in chap. x. 39 
is likewise due to the influence of Christological 
dogma. 

9. The addition of μεταξὺ σοῦ καὶ αὐτοῦ μόνου to 
ἔλεγξον αὐτόν (xviii. 15) points to the existence of 
a stereotyped gradation of disciplinary rule in the 
Christian community. But it is questionable whether 
this passage in its present form belongs to the original 
text of St. Matthew. 

10. Lastly, in chap. xxiii. 94, St. Matthew has pro- 
bably interpolated the words καὶ σταυρώσετε καὶ ἐξ 
αὐτῶν μαστιγώσετε ἐν ταῖς συναγωγαῖς ὑμῶν; and has 
added ἀπὸ πόλεως εἰς πόλιν to διώξετε. 

Probably these are all variations which St. Matthew 
has allowed himself to make from the transmitted text 
of Q (add also the clause ἕως ἂν πάντα γένηται in 


112 THE SAYINGS OF JESUS 


chap. v. 18).: Taking into account the considerable 
size of Q, they are few in number and of slight im- 
portance. Yet, on the other hand, they are numerous 
enough to exclude the hypothesis that St. Luke did 
not follow a source common to himself and St. 
Matthew, but used the gospel of St. Matthew itself. 


As for the variants of St. Luke, they are eight to 
ten times as numerous as those of St. Matthew. As 
in the case of the former group (pp. 38 ff), so also 
here it can be clearly shown that these variants are 
almost exclusively of a stylistic character. The twelve 
categories of our former list are now increased by 
several others. 'The most important are the follow- 
ing :— 

13. He introduces the imperfect, erases the hist. 
present, and makes a correct use of the participle, 
imperfect, and infinitive present and aorist. 

14. He substitutes the infinitive of the verb for a 
prepositional clause. 


1 Concerning υἱοῦ Bapaxlov (chap. xxiii. 35), see my remarks on the 
passage itself. If the words were added by St. Matthew himself, 
the question arises as to which Zacharias he was thinking of. In 
spite of Wellhausen’s discussion of this question, the last word on 
the subject has not yet been said. The theory that it is the 
Zacharias who was slain in the Temple at Jerusalem in the year 67 
or 68 A.D. is, in my opinion, impossible; for though St. Matthew 
could well put a detailed prophecy into the mouth of our Lord, yet 
he could not have let him say: ὃν ἐφονεύσατε. Since it follows from 
St. Luke that the saying in Q was not introduced as a word of the 
Lord, but as an utterance of the Sophia, this later Zacharias is 
absolutely excluded.—I do not wish here to go further into the 
question of the Lord’s Prayer. The address as it appears in St. 
Matthew suggests that the evangelist himself was the editor; but 
there are other reasons leading to a contrary opinion. 


INVESTIGATION OF THE TEXT 118 


15. He introduces the genit. abs. 

16. He amplifies, exaggerates, emphasises, accen- 
tuates. 

17. He writes λέγειν πρός; inserts τίς, completes 
objects, &c. 

18. In some cases he alters the whole style of the 
narrative, changes the order (vide pp. 38 f. and else- 
where), amplifies, curtails; the stylistic motive is not 
always apparent (other motives also enter into play, 
such as those which led him to the addition of new 
traits which enrich a simple narrative). 

19. He has favourite words and particles which he 
interpolates, while on the contrary he avoids other 
words. 

Alterations in the subject-matter of the source 
showing distinct motive and bias are extremely rare 
when compared with those stylistic changes which 
remind us of the corrections constantly made in our 
hymn-books. In what follows, I propose to deal with 
the most important of these material alterations :— 

In the story of the Temptation (iv. 1—13) it is 
expressly stated that our Lord was in Himself πλήρης 
πνεύματος ἁγίου, and that He was led into the 
wilderness not ὑπὸ τοῦ πνεύματος but ἐν πνεύματι. 
Also an opportunity is taken to let the devil explain 
that all power over the world had been delivered to’ 
him, and that he could give it to whomsoever he 
willed.—The saying concerning divorce is altered: 
it is made clear that the one guilty of adultery is 


1 These variants, or, one may say, arbitrary alterations, range 
between those of the least and the greatest interference with the 
text. He even replaces a mountain by a fig-tree. 

4 


114 THE SAYINGS OF JESUS 


he who divorces his wife and marries another.—Into 
the beginning of the Lord’s Prayer (xi. 2-4) there 
is inserted a petition for the gift of the Holy Spirit 
(ἐλθέτω TO ἅγιον πνεῦμα σου ἐφ᾽ ἡμᾶς Kal καθαρισάτω 
nu.as).—In the parable of the Two Houses (vi. 406.-.- 49), 
St. Luke has inserted the new thought that in build- 
ing everything depends upon the careful and laborious 
preparation of a proper foundation.—In chap. ix. 2 
he has set “ healing” side by side with the preaching 
of the approaching kingdom as an equally important 
function of the disciples—In chap. xii. 3 he shows 
a disposition to guard against our Lord being repre- 
sented as an esoteric teacher; in the following verse 
he has introduced “of φίλοι μου" as a designation 
which our Lord had applied to His disciples, and in 
the same passage he has omitted the expression “to 
kill the soul,” because it seemed to him—the Hellene 
—to be too paradoxical.—tIn chap. x. 16 he does 
not suffer our Lord to speak of the “reception” of 
the apostles (into the house); for this, at the time 
of the writer, was no longer possible, but of 
« hearing” them.— Into the parable of the Lost 
Sheep (xv. 7), St. Luke has interpolated the trait of 
repentance, of which no mention was made in the 
text of the source (so also in xvii. 9, 4); in chap. 
xi. 52 he has substituted “gnosis” for the «king- 
dom”; in chap. xi. 42, τὴν ἀγάπην τοῦ θεοῦ for 
ἔλεος (and πίστις); in chap. xi. 49, “apostles” for 
“wise men and scribes”; and in chap. vi. 22 he 
has inserted ἕνεκεν Tov υἱοῦ τοῦ ἀνθρώπου. 

These, so far as I can see, are all the corrections 
which display a distinct bias in regard to subject- 


INVESTIGATION OF THE TEXT 115 


matter. Such bias, therefore, has had no stronger 
influence with St. Luke than with St. Matthew— 
indeed, in the former case, its influence is somewhat 
weaker. In regard to style, however, St. Luke has 
thoroughly revised the text of the source, while 
St. Matthew in this respect has, as it seems, almost 
entirely refrained from correction. Yet although 
the stylistic corrections of St. Luke are so numerous, 
we cannot say that he has completely obliterated the 
characteristics of his exemplar. Indeed, in spite of 
all, we cannot but recognise that his work of revision 
is ever carried out in a conservative spirit, and that 
his readers receive from him a just impression of 
our Lord’s style of discourse. In not a few passages 
we are left in darkness as to the reason why in one 
place he corrects and in another place he allows the 
transmitted text to stand in spite of its harshness; 
only in some passages can we explain St. Luke’s 
version from his consideration of the parallel sections 
of St. Mark. In a few cases it is possible to doubt 
whether any common source lies at the background 
of St. Matthew and St. Luke (as in St. Luke vi. 
40. 49: vii. 1-10; xi. 41, 44; xiv. 26); yet there is 
an overbalancing weight of probability in favour of 
this hypothesis. We, however, almost always notice 
that short and pregnant utterances of our Lord, as 
compared with the longer discourses, have suffered 
least correction, and that the revision is most 
stringent in narrative and parable. 

That one and the same Greek translation of an 
Aramaic original lies behind the two gospels is shown 
by the large number of parallel sections which are 


116 THE SAYINGS OF JESUS 
verbally alike. Yet it is impossible to say anything 


at all definite concerning the homogeneity and extent 
of this source." The exemplar used by St. Matthew 
may have differed in this or that detail from the 
exemplar which lay before St. Luke — it is even 
probable from the nature of such texts that this was 
so—but we have found no sure criteria by which we 
can clearly distinguish the separate exemplars so that 
we can with any propriety speak of Q' and Ὁ. Even 
the translation-variants, to which Wellhausen, Nestle, 
and others have drawn attention, are not so certain 
as they appear at first sight; always, or almost 
always, they admit of other explanations. Never- 
theless, I would not deny the possibility, and here 
and there even the probability, of such variants. 
That in many sentences the Aramaic original is dis- 
cernible under the veil of the Greek text, is a fact 
which does not require to be specially pointed out.? 

1 Yet we may here remark that there is no basis for the 
hypothesis that the parts of the Sermon on the Mount, which are 
common to St. Matthew and St. Luke, are not dependent upon a 
common written source, but are derived from oral tradition. The 
situation here is not dissimilar to that of many other passages — 
i.e. it is beyond measure probable that St. Luke had before him 
a written text (the same which St. Matthew has used) which he 
has edited in accordance with his own stylistic principles. 

2 The result to which our investigation has brought us agrees 
in all important points with the results obtained by Wernle. This 
scholar, while rejecting the hypothesis that St. Luke was dis- 
tinctly biassed in his reproduction of his sources, writes as follows 
(‘‘Synopt. Frage,” 5. 88):—‘‘St. Luke had before him the dis- 
courses of the Logia-source in the primary form, not in a secondary 
edition. He himself, in spite of his conservative attitude, submitted 
this source to a threefold redaction: (1) he corrected it in accord- 


ance with his own Greek style ; (2) he arranged and furbished up 
the discourses so as to give them definite positions in the course 


INVESTIGATION OF THE TEXT 117% 


On the basis of the preceding investigations, I open 
the second chapter with a reconstruction of the text 
of Q. In not a few passages I am quite conscious 
of the hypothetical character of the text as it is 
printed. But without boldness it is impossible to 
make any advance in the solution of a problem such 
as this, and one must reckon with probabilities. 
However, I may claim no slight probability for 
the text I offer. But before we pass to the next 
chapter, I would add an appendix which is intended 
to justify my neglect of the sections, St. Matt. xxi. 32 
(St. Luke vii. 29, 30), St. Matt. xxii. 2-11 (St. Luke 
xiv. 16-23), and St. Matt. xxv. 14-30 (St. Luke 
xix. 12-27), in my attempt to ascertain the contents 
and the text of Q. 


of the narrative [this does not come out so clearly in the course 
of our investigations, because St. Luke’s introductions to the 
discourses have from the first been excluded from consideration] ; 
(3) he has edited them in accordance with the requirements of the 
times.” Wernle is also correct in his further remark (s. 185): 
“ἐ Almost everywhere St. Matthew has preserved a better text than 
St. Luke ;” yet he ought to have added that in St. Matthew there 
are to be found many alterations of the text of a very drastic 
nature—far more drastic than any St. Luke has allowed himself 
to make. 


APPENDIX TO CHAPTER I 


St. Matt. xxi. 32: ἦλθεν 

Ν > / Cree 2 
γὰρ ᾿Ιωάννης πρὸς ὑμᾶς ἐν 
ὁδῷ δικαιοσύνης, καὶ οὐκ ἐπισ- 
τεύσατε [56]]. οἱ ἀρχιερεῖς καὶ 
ot πρεσβύτεροι] αὐτῷ of δὲ 
τελῶναι καὶ αἱ πόρναι ἐπίσ- 
τευσαν αὐτῷ ὑμεῖς δὲ ἰδόντες 

50ῸΧΝ 7 4 
οὐδὲ μετεμελήθητε ὕστερον 


St. Luke vii. 29, 30: καὶ 
A ε > Ψ Ν «ε 
πᾶς ὁ λαὸς ἀκούσας καὶ οἵ 
A > , N , 
τελῶναι ἐδικαίωσαν τὸν θεόν, 
βαπτισθέντες τὸ βάπτισμα 
> / ε \ “ Ν 
Ιωάννου " οἱ δὲ Φαρισαῖοι καὶ 
ε ἈΝ Ν Ἀ Ὁ 
οἵ νομικοὺ τὴν βουλὴν τοῦ 
θεοῦ ἠθέτησαν εἰς ἑαυτούς, μὴ 
4 lal 
βαπτισθέντες ὑπ᾽ αὐτοῦ. 


nw ἴω 3 
TOV TLOTEVOAL AUT, 


St. Matthew introduces this passage among the dis- 
courses with the Jewish authorities (at the conclusion 
of the parable of the Two Sons) after the entry into 
Jerusalem; in St. Luke it-occurs very much earlier, in 
connection with the long discourse concerning St. John 
(that it does not fit into the context either at the one 
place or the other can be easily shown, vide Wellhausen 
on both passages). But one cannot but entertain serious 
doubt as to whether the passage belongs to Q—indeed 
whether the two versions are directly dependent upon 
any single common source. They are certainly derived 
from a common tradition—viz. some saying of our Lord 
to the effect, “The publicans followed the preaching of 
John, while the leaders of the people rejected him.” 
But beyond this all is different. Moreover, both in 
St. Matthew and St. Luke there occur in these passages 
such strong traces of the characteristics of the respective 
evangelists, or such evident signs of dependence upon 
the context, that it is no longer possible to deduce from 
them the wording of the original tradition. “ Oi τελῶναι καὶ 


ai πόρναι᾽᾽ in St, Matthew come from xxi. 31 ; “ dtxavordvn”’ 
118 


APPENDIX TO CHAPTER I 19 


must as ἃ rule be regarded as an interpolation by St. 
Matthew; ““πιστεύειν αὐτῷ, thrice repeated, is derived 
from xxi. 25, and μεταμέλεσθαι from xxi. 29. The same is 
the case in St. Luke. “Πᾶς ὁ Aads” occurs a dozen times 
in this gospel (never in St. Mark, once in St. Matthew); 
the active δικαιοῦν is never found in St. Matthew and 
St. Mark, while it occurs thrice in St. Luke’s gospel; 
βαπτισθέντες τὸ βάπτισμα is Lukan (cf. τιμαῖς ἐτίμησαν, 
ἀπειλῇ ἀπειλησώμεθα, παραγγελίᾳ παρηγγείλαμεν, ἐπιθυμίᾳ 
ἐπεθύμησα, φωνήσας φωνῇ, ἀναστὰς ἔστη, μενον ἔμενεν, 
φυλάσσοντες φυλακάς, ἀστραπὴ ἀστράπτουσα, φορτία φορ- 
τίζειν); likewise οἱ νομικοί in itself, and in conjunction 
with οἱ Φαρισαῖοι, is Lukan; “7 βουλή does not occur in 
St. Matthew, St. Mark, and St. John, while it is used nine 
times by St. Luke; ἀθετεῖν (wanting in St. Matthew) 
is also inserted by St. Luke in x. 16=St. Matt. x. 40; 
eis ἑαυτούς (ἑαυτόν) occurs only once again in the gospels, 
viz. in St. Luke xv. 17. Therefore we can say absolutely 
nothing concerning the form and origin of this saying. 


St. Matt. xxii, 2-11 (the Great Supper}—St. Luke 
xiv. 16-24. 

The skeleton is identical: A man who gives a feast; 
his first invitation (to those who are invited as a matter of 
course) is refused on the excuse of business of various kinds. 
The master becomes angry and invites the vagabonds. 
In detail some verbal, or almost verbal, coincidences are 
found: ἄνθρωπος (the giver of the feast), ἀπέστειλεν τὸν 
δοῦλον αὐτοῦ (τοὺς δούλους αὐτοῦ), of κεκλημένοι, ἔρχεσθε 

. ἕτοιμά ἐστιν (ἡτοίμακα... δεῦτε), ἀγρὸν ἠγόρασα (εϊς 
τὸν ἴδιον ἀγρόν), ζεύγη βοῶν ἠγόρασα (εἰς τὴν ἐμπορίαν αὐτοῦ), 
ὀργισθείς (ὠργίσθη), εἶπεν τῷ δούλῳ αὐτοῦ (λέγει τοῖς δούλοις 
αὐτοῦ), ἔξελθε εἰς τὰς πλατείας καὶ ῥύμας τῆς πόλεως (πορεύ- 
εσθε ἐπὶ τὰς διεξόδους τῶν ὁδῶν), ἔξελθε εἰς τὰς ὁδούς (ἐξελ. 
θόντες εἰς τὰς ὁδούς). 


120 THE SAYINGS OF JESUS 


But in contrast with these coincidences we find 
instances of great dissimilarity :— 

1, In St. Matthew the host is a king (God). 

2. The feast is a marriage-feast. 

3. The marriage feast is given in honour of the son 
(Christ). 

4. In St. Matthew several servants! are sent out with 
invitations, in St. Luke only one.? 

5. In St. Matthew the first invited are invited twice (the 
second time other servants are sent); in St. Luke, after the 
invitation of the poor, homeless, &c., since there is still 
room, the invitation is extended to the utterly destitute. 

6. In St. Matthew the second invitation to the first 
invited is amplified so as to attract them. 

7. In St. Matthew it is only shortly stated what the 
first invited did instead of responding to the invitation; 
in St. Luke their excuses are given word for word (three 
cases are given in contrast to two in St. Matthew). 

8. St. Matthew relates that some of the invited ill- 
treated and slew the inviting servants; St. Luke knows 
nothing of this. > 

9. St. Matthew relates that the king sent his armies 
against those murderers and destroyed them and burnt 
their city ; 38 St. Luke tells us nothing of this.* 

10. St. Matthew adds the story of the man without a 
wedding garment. 

1 The prophets are probably signified. I do not understand how 
Wellhausen has arrived at the conclusion that the apostles are meant. 

2 Perhaps our Lord Himself is signified ; but this interpretation 
is by no means certain. 

3 The text here is, of course, doubtful; perhaps we ought to 
read ‘‘ destroyed them and their cities.” 

4 Taking together these new traits in St. Matthew, it is clear 
that the evangelist has amalgamated a second parable (B) with the 
main parable (A). B tells us of a king against whom his subjects 
revolted in his absence, and who punished them with a terrible 
vengeance. This parable was allied to the parable of the Vineyard. 


APPENDIX TO CHAPTER I 121 


There is no need of many words to prove that here 
St. Matthew is almost everywhere secondary; the only 
question is whether the distinction of two classes of 
poor, as well as the verbal report of the excuses in St. 
Luke, are primary. The former trait answers to this 
evangelist’s warm interest in the very poorest, and the 
latter to that pictorial style which is a frequent char- 
acteristic of St. Luke. Nevertheless, in these traits 
he may also preserve the original text. The main dis- 
tinction between the two versions is that St. Matthew 
has transformed a genuine parable! into an allegory with 
an historical motive. 

Did, however, the text, as presented in St. Luke, 
form the exemplar of St. Matthew? and did it belong 
to Q? The first question should perhaps be answered 
in the affirmative: the exemplar of St. Matthew, so 
far as its essential content is concerned, would -not have 
presented a very different appearance from the text 
given in St. Luke, which besides permits of easy trans- 
lation back again into Aramaic.2 The second question 

1 In the concluding verse in St. Luke (xiv. 24) our Lord Himself 
is represented as the host; but the introduction of this trait has 
not seriously affected the general character of the original parable. 

2 Note also that δέ is wanting, and that, on the other hand, ten 
clauses of the section begin with καί (the style is, however, Lukan in 
places; thus τις, verse 16; παραγενόμενος, verse 21; dpa, with gen., 
verse 17 [vide St. Luke i. 10; Acts iii. 1, x. 3, xvi. 33, xxiii. 23], 
ἤρξαντο, verse 18; παραιτεῖσθαι, verses 18 and 19 [wanting in the 
gospels ; see, however, Acts xxv. 11]; ἀνάπηρος, verse 21 [only again 
in New Testament in St. Luke xiv. 13]). ᾿Απὸ μιᾶς, verse 18, can 
scarcely be Semitic (Wellhausen), but is a vulgar abbreviation for 
ἀπὸ puds γνώμης (so once in Philo) vel ψυχῆς. The phrase: ἔχω 
ἀνάγκην ἐξελθὼν ἰδεῖν αὐτόν is good Greek. Is the phrase: ἔχε pe 
παρῃτημένον (‘‘habe me excusatum,” Martial) a Latinism? We 
must of course become much more cautious in making such assump- 
tions. It is also possible that St. Matthew has preserved a more 
faithful representation of the original text ¢f we subtract all the traits 
which are derwed from the parable B, 


122 THE SAYINGS OF JESUS 


I am inclined to answer in the negative; for St. Matthew 
has upon no other occasion so freely edited or amalgamated 
with other material those sections which are derived 
from Q. We must therefore conjecture that either this 
section did not occur in Q, or that if it did, it had already 
received another form in Q before that source reached 
St. Matthew. In the first case, the section lies outside 
our sphere of investigation into the constitution of the 
text of Q; in the second case, it is difficult to determine 
whether we should claim for Q the Lukan text purified 
of its Lukan traits or the text of St. Matthew less those 
traits derived from the parable B. Hence we must 
disregard this section altogether. 


St. Matt. xxv. 14-30 (the parable of the Talents)— 
St. Luke xix. 12-27. 

Here the chief distinction between St. Matthew and 
St. Luke lies in the fact that St. Luke has amalgamated 
with the parable of the Talents (C) the afore-mentioned 
parable B (concerning the king taking vengeance upon 
his revolted subjects) which St. Matthew has combined 
with the parable (A) of the preceding section. A very 
perplexing case! The parable B could not preserve its 
separate existence, and has been incorporated into the 
parable of the Great Supper (A) by St. Matthew, and 
into the parable of the Talents (C) by St. Luke—in both 
cases bringing into its new context a disturbing and 
incongruous element. In St. Luke the parable B? is 
given in clearer detail than B! in St. Matthew, but its 
connection with the context is even poorer here than in 
the latter gospel. It is noteworthy that St. Matthew 
has amalgamated with A yet a third parable D (the 

1 B in St. Matthew is not quite identical with B in St. Luke, 


yet they are closely allied. We must therefore distinguish them 
as B1 and Β3, 


APPENDIX TO CHAPTER I 123 


Wedding Garment), and that C and D both conclude 
with the clause: ἐκβάλετε (αὐτὸν) εἰς τὸ σκότος Td ἐξώτερον * 
ἐκεῖ ἔσται ὁ κλαυθμὸς καὶ ὁ βρυγμὸς τῶν ὀδόντων. The 
parable B? also concluded with a terrifying command: 
κατασφάξατε αὐτοὺς ἔμπροσθέν μου, and the parable A 
likewise concludes with a melancholy sentence (St. Luke 
xiv. 24): οὐδεὶς τῶν ἀνδρῶν ἐκείνων TOV κεκλημένων γεύσεταί 
μου τοῦ δείπνου. There were thus four parables, all of 
which were originally concerned with the Parousia (the 
Judgment and the Kingdom); St. Matthew gives them 
in the order—first, A amalgamated with B! and with 
D as an appendix, then C; St. Luke gives first A, then 
C amalgamated with B?. How this came to pass in the 
course of tradition it is no longer possible to discover; 
we must therefore refrain from attempting to ascertain 
whether these parables stood in Q, and in what form.? 
Now in regard to C, we find that at the beginning 
of the parable the form in St. Matthew is different 
from that in St. Luke; on the other hand verbal, or 
almost verbal, coincidences are not wanting—indeed in 
the second part and in the dialogue—this is character- 
istic !—they become very strongly marked. Cf. ἄνθρωπος 
(both) — ἀποδημῶν [ἐπορεύθη εἰς χώραν μακράν] ---- ἐκάλεσεν 
[καλέσας] --- τοὺς ἰδίους δούλους [δέκα δούλους ] | — ἔδωκεν αὐτοῖς 
(both) — εὖ, δοῦλε ἀγαθέ... ἐπὶ ὀλίγα ἧς πιστός, ἐπὶ πολλῶν 
σε καταστήσω [εὖγε, ἀγαθὲ δοῦλε, ὅτι ἐν ἐλαχίστῳ πιστὸς 
ἐγένου, ἴσθι ἐξουσίαν ἔχων κτλ.] ---- σκληρὸς εἶ ἄνθρωπος, 
θερίζων ὅπου οὐκ ἔσπειρας καὶ συνάγων ὅθεν οὐ διεσκόρπισας 
[ἄνθρωπος αὐστηρὸς εἶ, αἴρεις ὃ οὐκ ἔθηκας, καὶ θερίζεις ὃ 
οὐκ ἔσπειρας] ---- πονηρὲ δοῦλε... ἤδεις ὅτι θερίζω ὅπου οὐκ 


1 Of. BL: ἀπώλεσεν τοὺς φονεῖς ἐκείνους καὶ τὴν πόλιν αὐτῶν ἐνέπρησεν 
[or in place of the last four words simply, τὰς πόλεις]. 

2 A further amalgamation took place in the Gospel of the 
Hebrews; here the parable of the Prodigal Son is combined 
with Ο. 


124 THE SAYINGS OF JESUS 


μη Ἁ iA ti > , Ν A μὲ 
ἔσπειρα καὶ συνάγω ὅθεν οὐ διεσκόρπισα [πονηρὲ δοῦλε, ἤδεις 
Lid + “a > μὲ Ν ΄ a > ” AN 
ὅτι. . . αἴρων ὃ οὐκ ἔθηκα καὶ θηρίζων ὃ οὐκ ἔσπειρα] --- ἔδει 

3 r Ἀπ. 5 , , A ΄ὔ ᾿ 5 \ 
σε οὖν βαλεῖν τὰ ἀργύριά pov τοῖς τραπεζείταις, καὶ ἐλθὼν 
» Ν > / bal ᾿ς Ἅπας Ν / \ Ἂν / > + ze 
ἐγὼ ἐκομισάμην ἂν τὸ ἐμὸν σὺν τόκῳ [καὶ διὰ τί οὐκ ἔδωκάς 

> ’ DEYN / > AS \ Ν ’ x 3 

μου τὸ ἀργύριον ἐπὶ τράπεζαν; κἀγὼ ἐλθὼν σὺν τόκῳ ἂν αὐτὸ 
ἔπραξα] --- ἄρατε οὖν ἀπ᾽ αὐτοῦ τὸ τάλαντον καὶ δότε τῷ ἔχοντι 
τὰ δέκα τάλαντα [ἄρατε ἀπ᾽ αὐτοῦ τὴν μνᾶν καὶ δότε τῷ τὰς 
δέκα μνᾶς ἔχοντι] --- τῷ γὰρ ἔχοντι παντὶ δοθήσεται . . . τοῦ 
δὲ μὴ ἔχοντος καὶ ὃ ἔχει ἀρθήσεται ἀπ’ αὐτοῦ [ὅτι παντὶ τῶ 
μ᾿ [4 DEE \ Lad xy, Ἂ δ oF. 3 ’ὔ 
ἔχοντι δοθήσεται, ἀπὸ δὲ τοῦ μὴ ἔχοντος καὶ ὃ ἔχει ἀρθήσεται]. 
Here it is quite evident that there is, at the background, 
a single traditional source declaring itself even in details 
of phraseology.!. Hence the differences proceed most 
probably from the hand of the final revisor—z.e. either 
St. Luke or St. Matthew have made corrections. Which 
of them was the corrector? We give the following 
table of comparison, wherein we of course entirely neglect 
those traits which St. Luke has derived from B?:— 


St Matthew :— St. Luke :-— 
Servants of an indefinite Ten servants, 
number, 
The lord on his departure The lord on his departure 
commits all his posses- commits to each only a 
sions to his servants, pound, and expressly tells 


them to trade therewith. 

and indeed to each ac- 
cording to his ability, 
to one five talents, to 
another two, to the third 
one (these are intended to 
serve as examples of the 
method of distribution), 


1 The synonyms are not translation-variants, but are linguistic 
corrections made by St. Luke. 


APPENDIX TO CHAPTER I 125 


he who received five 
talents gains therewith 
other five talents, he 
who received two gains 
other two, he who re- 
ceived one buries it in 
the earth; 

on his return the lord 
as a reward sets those 
who had received the 
five and the two talents 
over “many things” and 
adds, “Enter into the 
joy of thy lord”; the 
talent is taken from him 
who had buried it. 


This information is not 
given expressly in the 
narrative but is com- 
municated in what fol- 
lows. 


the first says that his 
pound has gained ten 
pounds, the second that 
his pound has _ gained 
five pounds; the first is 
set over ten cities, the 
second over five cities, 
another [the other] re- 
turns the pound which 


he had kept wrapped in 
a napkin;! it is taken 
from him. 


In St. Matthew the lord divides what he leaves behind 
him among all his servants—leaving them to decide what 
they should do with it; in St. Luke he makes trial of 
ten of his servants, giving them an express direction as 
to their procedure. In St. Matthew he divides to each 
individually according to his ability, but gives the same 
reward to those who had laboured; in St. Luke he gives 
the same to all, but the reward varies in accordance with 
the performance of each.2, It seems to me that the 
simpler version is that of St. Matthew. This impression, 

1 Σουδάριον in St. Luke is an obvious Latinism. 

2 In St. Matthew it is the servant who gains, in St. Luke it is 
the pound which each has received. The latter version is naturally 
secondary, because it betrays most reflexion. Lastly, there are 
still obvious traces in St. Luke that his exemplar mentioned not 
ten but, as in St. Matthew, three servants, 


126 THE SAYINGS OF JESUS 


moreover, is confirmed by a glance at a passage in 
St. Mark. Here we read (xiii. 34): ὡς ἄνθρωπος ἀπόδημος 
(cf. St. Matthew verse 14: ὥσπερ ἄνθρωπος ἀποδημῶν, 
otherwise in St. Luke) ἀφεὶς τὴν οἰκίαν αὐτοῦ καὶ δοὺς τοῖς 
δούλοις αὐτοῦ τὴν ἐξουσίαν (therefore not a test but the 
management of the whole household, as in St. Matthew ; 
otherwise in St. Luke), ἐκάστῳ τὸ ἔργον αὐτοῦ (to each 
therefore according to his ability; so also in St. Matthew, 
otherwise in St. Luke). Thus St. Matthew, in contrast 
to St. Luke, agrees with St. Mark, who evidently knew 
of the parable which has been drastically edited by St. 
Luke. It does not, however, follow that the parable 
comes from Q, nor—if it comes from Q—that St. Matthew 
has handed it down to us in its original form. This is 
indeed improbable. In St. Mark to each servant is 
assigned his separate function in the household; this 
idea can indeed be still traced in St. Matthew (and in 
St. Luke), but it has been thrust into the background 
by ideas of another kind. The trafficking with money 
can have had no place in the forms of the parable with 
which St. Mark was acquainted; for he knows nothing 
at all of the distribution of money to the servants. 
Hence the common source of St. Matthew and St. Luke 
is secondary when compared with St. Mark (whether 
it was contained in Q we cannot tell). Its form has 
perhaps arisen from the combination of two parables 
(ΟἹ; the departing lord delivers his household to the 
care of his servants; C?: the departing lord gives his 
property to his servants that they may develop it). 


CHAPTER II 


LINGUISTIC AND HISTORICAL INVESTIGATION OF THE NON- 
MARKAN SECTIONS COMMON TO 81. MATTHEW AND 
ST. LUKE (0). 
I.—Tue Text 
1. (Sr. Mart. iii. 5, 7-12; Sr. Luxe iii. 3, 7-9, 16, 17.) 

(7) [- . - Πᾶσα ἡ περίχωρος τοῦ ᾿Ιορδάνου . . 
ἰδὼν [Ἰωάννης] πολλοὺς [πε τοὺς ὄχλου] - + + ἐρχο- 
μένους ἐπὶ TO βάπτισμα εἶπεν αὐτοῖς" 

Τεννήματα ἐχιδνῶν, τίς ὑπέδειξεν ὑμῖν φυγεῖν, ἀπὸ 
τῆς μελλούσης ὀργῆς; (8) ποιήσατε οὗν καρπὸν ἄξιον 
τῆς μετανοίας: (9) καὶ μὴ δόξητε [ἄρξησθε ἢ] λέγειν 
ἐν ἑαυτοῖς" πατέρα ἔχομεν τὸν ᾿Αβραάμ: λέγω γὰρ 
ὑμῖν ὅτι δύναται ὁ θεὸς ἐκ τῶν λίθων τούτων ἐγεῖραι 
τέκνα τῷ ᾿Αβραάμ": (10) ἤδη δὲ ἡ ἀξίνη πρὸς τὴν 
ῥίζαν τῶν δένδρων κεῖται: πᾶν οὖν δένδρον μὴ ποιοῦν 
κα πὸν καλὸν ἐκκόπτεται καὶ εἰς πῦρ βάλλεται. (11) 
ἐγὼ μὲν ὑμᾶς βαπτίζω ἐν ὕδατι εἰς μετάνοιαν ὃ δὲ 
ἥτις > , 9 , , , 9 a > 
ὀπίσω μου ἐρχόμενος ἰσχυρότερος MOU ἐστιν, οὗ οὐκ 
εἰμὶ ἱκανὸς τὰ ὑποδήματα βαστάσαι: αὐτὸς ὑμᾶς βατ- 
τίσει ἐν [πνεύματι (ἁγίῳ) καὶ] πυρί, (12) οὗ τὸ πτύον 
ἐν τῇ χειρὶ αὐτοῦ, καὶ διακαθαριεῖ τὴν ἅλωνα αὐτοῦ; καὶ 
συνάξει τὸν σῖτον αὐτοῦ εἰς τὴν ἀποθήκην; τὸ δὲ ἄχυρον 
κατακαύσει πυρὶ ἀσβέστῳ (pp. 40, 41). 

2. (Sr. Marr. iv. 1-11; Sr. Luxe iv. 1-13.) 
(1) Ὃ Ἰησοῦς ἀνήχθη εἰς τὴν ἔρημον ὑπὸ τοῦ πνεύ- 


ματος πειρασθῆναι ὑπὸ τοῦ διαβόλου, (2) καὶ νηστεύσας 
127 


128 THE SAYINGS OF JESUS 


e , f A , ἄν! 3 , νον 
ἡμέρας μ' καὶ νύκτας μ' ὕστερον επεινασεν; (3) καὶ o 
πειράζων εἶπεν αὐτῷ" εἰ υἱὸς εἶ τοῦ θεοῦ, εἰπὲ ἵνα οἱ 
λίθοι οὗτοι ἄρτοι γένωνται; (4) καὶ ἀπεκρίθη: γέγραπ- 
ται: οὐκ ἐπ᾽ ἄρτῳ μόνῳ ζήσεται ὁ ἄνθρωπος. 
, A 9 ἈΝ ΤΩΣ 4 Were 
(5) παραλαμβάνει δὲ αὐτον εἰς Ἱερουσαλὴμ καὶ ἐστησεν 
αὐτὸν ἐπὶ τὸ πτερύγιον τοῦ ἱεροῦ (6) καὶ λέγει αὐτῶ" 
“- A lat , . 

εἰ υἱὸς εἶ τοῦ θεοῦ, βάλε σεαυτὸν κάατὼ: γέγραπται γὰρ 
ὅτι τοῖς ἀγγέλοις αὐτοῦ ἐντελεῖται περὶ σοῦ καὶ 
ἐπὶ χειρῶν ἀροῦσίν σε, μή ποτε προσκόψῃς πρὸς 

ἢ ““" ε ΄ 
λίθον τὸν πόδα cov. (7) ἔφη αὐτῷ ὁ ᾿Ιησοὺς: πάλιν 

'Α 
γέγραπται: οὐκ ἐκπειράσεις κύριον τὸν θεόν σου. 
‘ e 

(8) πάλιν παραλαμβάνει αὐτὸν εἰς ὄρος ὑψηλὸν λίαν 
καὶ δείκνυσιν αὐτῷ πάσας τὰς βασιλείας τοῦ κόσμου καὶ 
τὴν δόξαν αὐτῶν; (9) καὶ εἶπεν αὐτῷ- ταῦτα σοι πάντα 

, aN vd 4 , ’ “ e 
δώσω, ἐὰν προσκυνήσῃς pot. (10) καὶ λέγει αὐτῷ ὁ 
᾿Ιησοῦς - γέγραπται" κύριον τὸν θεόν σου προσ- 
κυνήσεις καὶ αὐτῷ μόνῳ λατρεύσεις. (11) καὶ 


ἀφίησιν αὐτὸν ὁ διάβολος (pp. 41 ff). 


8. (Sr. Marr. v. 1-4, 6, 11,12; Sr. Luxe 
vi. 17, 20-23.) 


(1):{2) [-- - -OxXor-. = ἐδίδαξεν τοὺς μαθητὰς 
λέγων .- + .} 

(8) Μακάριοι οἱ πτωχοί; ὅτι αὐτῶν ἐστιν ἡ βασιλεία 
τοῦ θεοῦ; : 

(4) μακάριοι οἱ πενθοῦντες, ὅτι αὐτοὶ παρακληθή- 
σονται: 

(6) μακάριοι of πεινῶντες; ὅτι αὐτοὶ χορτασθήσονται. 

(1) μακάριοί ἐστε, ὅταν ὀνειδίσωσιν ὑμᾶς καὶ διώ- 
Ewow καὶ εἴπωσιν πᾶν πονηρὸν καθ᾽ ὑμῶν ψευδόμενοι. 

(12) χαίρετε καὶ ἀγαλλιᾶσθε, ὅτι ὁ μισθὸς ὑμῶν 


THE TEXT 129 


A ᾽ - 9 a Ca A 907 A 
πολὺς ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς: οὕτως γὰρ ἐδίωξαν τοὺς προ- 
φήτας τοὺς πρὸ ὑμῶν (p. 48). 


4. (Sr. Marr. v. 39, 40; Sr. Luxe vi. 29.) 
(39) Ὅστις σε  ῥαπίζει εἰς τὴν [δεξιὰν] σιαγόνα [σου]: 


στρέψον αὐτῷ καὶ τὴν ἄλλην, (40) καὶ τῷ θέλοντί σοι 
κριθῆναι καὶ τὸν χιτῶνά σου λαβεῖν, a ἄφες αὐτῷ καὶ τὸ 


ἱμάτιον (p. 58). 


5. (Sr. Marr. v. 42; Sr. Luxe vi. 30.) 


(42) Τῷ αἰτοῦντί σε δός, καὶ τὸν θέλοντα ἀπὸ σοῦ 
δανίσασθαι μὴ ἀποστραφῇς (p. 58). 


ΠΕ Marr. v. 44-48; Sr. Luxe vi. 27, 28, 35°, 
32, 33, 36.) 


G*) Ἐγὼ λέγω ὑμῖν" ἀγαπᾶτε τοὺς ἐχθροὺς ὑ ὑμῶν 
καὶ προσεύχεσθε ὑπὲρ τῶν διωκόντων ὑ ὑμᾶς, (45) ὅπως 
γένησθε υἱοὶ Του πατρὸς ὑμῶν, ὅτι τὸν ἥλιον αὐτοῦ 
ἀνατέλλει ἐπὶ πονηροὺς καὶ ἀγαθοὺς [καὶ βρέχει ἐπὶ 
δικαίους καὶ ἀδίκους. (46) ἐὰν γὰρ ἀγαπήσητε τοὺς 
ἀγαπῶντας ὑμᾶς, τίνα μισθὸν ἔχετε; > οὐχὶ καὶ οἱ 
τελῶναι τὸ αὐτὸ ποιοῦσιν ; (47) καὶ ἐὰν ἀσπάσησθε 
τοὺς ἀδελφοὺς ὑμῶν μόνον; τί περισσὸν ποιεῖτε; οὐχὶ 
καὶ οἱ ἐθνικοὶ τὸ αὐτὸ ποιοῦσιν; (48) ἔσεσθε οὖν οἰκτίρ- 
μονες [ ἐλεήμονες Ὁ] ὡς ὁ πατὴρ ὑμῶν οἰκτίρμων [ἢ ἐλεή- 
μων 1] ἐστίν (p. 59). 


7. (Sr. Marr. vii. 12; Sr. Luxe vi. 31.) 


(12) Πάντα ὅσα ἐὰν θέλητε Wa ποιῶσιν ὑμῖν οἱ 
ἄνθρωποι; οὕτως καὶ ὑμεῖς ποιεῖτε αὐτοῖς (p. 9). 
I 


130 THE SAYINGS OF JESUS 


8. (Sr. Marr. vii. 1-5; St. Luxe vi. 37, 38, 41, 42.) 
ἴω Μὴ κρίνετε; ἵνα μὴ κριθῆτε, (2) ἐ εν ᾧ γὰρ κρίματι 


κρίνετε κριθήσεσθε, καὶ ἐν ᾧ μέτρῳ μετρεῖτε ET PN 
θήσεται ὑμῖν. (3) τί δὲ βλέπεις τὸ κάρφος τὸ ἐν τῷ 
ὀφθαλμῷ τοῦ ἀδελφοῦ σου; τὴν δὲ ἐν τῷ σῷ ὀφθαλμῷ 
δοκὸν οὐ κατανοεῖς; (4) ἢ πῶς ἐρεῖς τῷ ἀδελφῷ σου" 
ἄφες ἐκβάλω τὸ Kappos ἐκ τοῦ ὀφθαλμοῦ σου: καὶ ἡ 
δοκὸς ἐν τῷ ὀφθαλμῷ σου; (5) ὑποκριτά, ἔκβαλε 
πρῶτον ἐκ τοῦ ὀφθαλμοῦ σου τὴν δοκόν, καὶ τότε 
διαβλέψεις ἐκβαλεῖν τὸ Kappos ἐκ τοῦ ὀφθαλμοῦ τοῦ 
ἀδελφοῦ σου (p. 8). 


9. (ὅτ. Marr. xv. 14; Sr. Luxe vi. 39.) 
(14) Τυφλὸς τυφλὸν ἐὰν ὁδηγῇ» ἀμφότεροι εἰς 


βόθυνον πεσοῦνται (Ρ. 28). 


10. (Sr. Mart. x. 94, 25; Sr. Luxe vi. 40.) 


(24) Οὐκ ἔστιν μαθητὴς ὑπὲρ τὸν διδάσκαλον οὐδὲ 
δοῦλος ὑπὲρ τὸν κύριον αὐτοῦ. (85) ἀρκετὸν τῷ 
μαθητῇ ἵνα γένηται ὡς ὁ διδάσκαλος αὐτοῦ, καὶ ὁ 


δοῦλος ὡς ὁ κύριος αὐτοῦ (p. 79). 


11. (Sr. Marr. vii. 16-18; xii. 33; Sr. Luxe 
vi. 43, 44.) 


(33) ᾿Εκ τοῦ “καρποῦ τὸ δένδρον γινώσκεται. μήτι 
συλλέγουσιν ἀπὸ ἀκανθῶν σταφυλὰς ἢ ἀπὸ τριβόλων 
σύκα; (17) οὕτως πᾶν δένδρον ἀγαθὸν καρπὸν καλὸν 
ποιεῖ, τὸ δὲ σαπρὸν δένδρον καρπὸν πονηρὸν ποιεῖ. 
(18) οὐ δύναται δένδρον ἀγαθὸν καρπὸν πονηρὸν 
ἐνεγκεῖν οὐδὲ δένδρον σαπρὸν καρπὸν καλὸν ποιεῖν 


(p- 68). 


THE TEXT 131 


12. (Sr. Marr. vii. 21, 24-27; Sr. Luxe vi. 46-49.) 


(21) [Ov πᾶς ὁ λέγων μοι" κύριε κύριε, εἰσελεύσέται 
εἰς τὴν βασιλείαν τοῦ θεοῦ, ἀλλ᾽ ὁ ποιῶν TO θέλημα τοῦ 
πατρός μου]. (24) πᾶς οὖν ὅστις ἀκούει μου τοὺς 
λόγους τούτους καὶ ποιεῖ αὐτούς, ὑποδείξω ὑμῖν τίνι 
ἐστὶν ὅμοιος " ὅμοιός ἐστιν [or in place of these seven 
words simply ὁμοιωθήσεται] ἀνδρὶ ὅστις ὠκοδόμησεν 
αὐτοῦ τὴν οἰκίαν ἐπὶ τὴν πέτραν. (25) καὶ κατέβη ἡ 
βροχὴ καὶ ἦλθον οἱ ποταμοὶ καὶ ἔπνευσαν οἱ ἄνεμοι καὶ 
προσέπεσαν τῇ οἰκίᾳ ἐκείνῃ, καὶ οὐκ ἔπεσεν" τεθεμελίωτο 
γὰρ ἐπὶ τὴν πέτραν. (26) καὶ πᾶς ὁ ἀκούων μου 
τοὺς λόγους τούτους καὶ μὴ ποιῶν αὐτοὺς ὁμοιωθή- 
σεται ἀνδρὶ ὅστις ὠκοδόμησεν αὐτοῦ τὴν οἰκίαν ἐπὶ 
τὴν ἄμμον. (27) καὶ κατέβη ἡ βροχὴ καὶ ἦλθον οἱ 
ποταμοὶ καὶ ἔπνευσαν οἱ ἄνεμοι καὶ προσέκοψαν τῇ 
οἰκίᾳ ἐκείνῃ, καὶ ἔπεσεν, καὶ ἦν ἡ πτῶσις αὐτῆς μεγάλη 


(p. 70). 


13. (Sr. Mart. vii. 28; viii. 5-10, 13; Sr. Luxe 
vii. 1-10.) 


(28, viii. 5) [After He had spoken these words] 
εἰσῆλθεν εἰς Καφαρναοὺμ καὶ προσῆλθεν αὐτῷ ἑκατόν- 
ταρχος παρακαλῶν, αὐτὸν (6) καὶ λέγων᾽ κύριε, ὁ παῖς 
μου βέβληται ἐν τῇ οἰκίᾳ παραλυτικός, δεινῶς βασανι- 
ζόμενος. () λέγει αὐτῷ" ἐγὼ ἐλθὼν θεραπεύσω 
αὐτόν. (8) ἀποκριθεὶς δὲ ὁ ἑκατόνταρχος ἔφη" κύριε, 
οὐκ εἰμὶ ἱκανὸς ἵνα μου ὑπὸ τὴν στέγην εἰσέλθης" ἀλλὰ 
μόνον εἰπὲ λόγῳ, καὶ ἰαθήσεται ὁ παῖς μου. (9) καὶ 
γὰρ ἐγὼ ἄνθρωπός εἰμι ὑπὸ ἐξουσίαν, ἔχων ὑπ᾽ ἐμαυτὸν 
στρατιώτας, καὶ λέγω τούτῳ πορεύθητι, καὶ πορεύεται, 


) 


132 THE SAYINGS OF JESUS 


καὶ GAAw' ἔρχου, καὶ ἔρχεται, καὶ τῷ δούλῳ μου" 
ποίησον τοῦτο, καὶ ποιεῖ. (10) ἀκούσας δὲ ὁ ᾿]ησοῦς 
ἐθαύμασεν καὶ εἶπεν τοῖς ἀκολουθοῦσιν: [ἀμὴν] λέγω 
λυ | ba \ ἊΝ ~ 17 Α ’ ld a 

υμίν, οὐδὲ ἐν τῷ σραήλ τοσαύτην πίστιν εὗρον. [(13) 
καὶ εἶπεν ὁ Τροθῆε τῷ ἑκατοντάρχῃ" [ὕπαγε] ὡς 
ἐπίστευσας γενηθήτω σοι. καὶ ἰάθη ὁ παῖς ἐν τῇ ὥρᾳ 


ἐκείνη] (pp. 71, 74). 


14. (Sr. Marr. xi. 2-11; Sr. Luxe vii. 18-28.) 


(2) Ὃ δὲ ᾿Ιωάννης ἀκούσας ἐν τῷ δεσμωτηρίῳ. τὰ 
ἔργα τοῦ «Χριστοῦ, πέμψας διὰ τῶν μαθητῶν αὐτοῦ 
εἶπεν αὐτῷ" (3) σὺ εἶ ὁ ἐρχόμενος. ἢ ἕτερον προσδο- 
κῶμεν; (4) καὶ ἀποκριθεὶς εἶπεν αὐτοῖς" πορευθέντες 
ἀπαγγείλατε ᾿Ιωάννῃ ἃ ἀκούετε καὶ βλέπετε. (5) 
τυφλοὶ ἀναβλέπουσιν καὶ χωλοὶ περιπατοῦσιν, λεπροὶ 
καθαρΐζονται καὶ κωφοὶ ἀκούουσιν, καὶ νεκροὶ ἐγείρονται 
καὶ πτωχοὶ εὐαγγελίζονται: (6) καὶ μακάριός ἐστιν ὃς 
ἂν μὴ σκανδαλισθῇ ἐν ἐμοί, (7) τούτων δὲ πορευο- 
μένων ἤρξατο λέγειν τοῖς ὄχλοις περὶ ᾿Ιωάννου" τί 
ἐξήλθατε εἰς τὴν ἔρημον θεάσασθαι; κάλαμον ὑπὸ 
ἀνέμου σαλευόμενον; (8) ἀλλὰ τί ἐξήλθατε ἰδεῖν; 
ἄνθρωπον ἐ εν μαλακοῖς ἐμφιεσμένον; ἰδοὺ οἱ τὰ μαλακὰ 
φοροῦντες ἐν τοῖς οἴκοις τῶν βασιλέων. (9) ἀλλὰ τί 
ἐξήλθατε; προφήτην ἰδεῖν, ναὶ λέγω ὑμῖν, καὶ περισ- 
σότερον προφήτου. (10) οὗτός ἐστιν περὶ οὗ γέγραπ- 
ται" ἰδοὺ ἐ ἐγὼ ἀποστέλλω τὸν ἀγγελόν μου πρὸ 
προσώπου σου, ὃς κατασκευάσει τὴν ὁδόν σου 
ἔμπροσθέν σου. (11) [ἀμὴν] λέγω ὑμῖν, οὐκ ἐγήγερ- 
ται ἐν γεννητοῖς γυναικῶν μείζων ᾿Ιωάννου [τοῦ βαπτισ- 
τοῦ] ὁ δὲ μικρότερος ἐν τῇ βασιλείᾳ τοῦ θεοῦ μείζων 
αὐτοῦ ἐστιν (pp. 90, 14). 


THE TEXT 133 


15. (St. Marr. xi. 16-19; Sr. Luxe vii. 31-35.) 

(16) Τίνι ὁμοιώσω τὴν γενεὰν ταύτην [καὶ τίνι ἐστὶν 
ὁμοία]: ὁμοία ἐστὶν παιδίοις καθημένοις ἐν ταῖς ἀγοραῖς 
ἃ προσφωνοῦντα τοῖς ἑτέροις (17) λέγουσιν᾽ ηὐλήσαμεν 
ὑμῖν καὶ οὐκ ὠρχήσασθε' ἐθρηνήσαμεν καὶ οὐκ ἐκόψασθε. 
(18) ἦλθεν γὰρ ᾿Ιωάννης μήτε ἐσθίων μήτε πίνων, καὶ 
λέγουσιν" δαιμόνιον ἔχει. (9) ἦλθεν ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ 
ἀνθρώπου ἐσθίων καὶ πίνων, καὶ λέγουσιν" ἰδοὺ ἂν- 
θρωπος φάγος καὶ οἰνοπότης, τελωνῶν φίλος καὶ ἁμαρ- 
τωλῶν. καὶ ἐδικαιώθη ἡ σοφία ἀπὸ τῶν τέκνων αὐτῆς 


(. 16). 
16. (Sr. Marr. x. '7; Sr. Luxe ix. 2; x. 9, 11.) 


(7) Πορευόμενοι κηρύσσετε λέγοντες ὅτι ἤγγικεν ἡ 
βασιλεία τοῦ θεοῦ (p. 79). 


17. (Sr. Marr. viii. 19-22; Sr. Luxe ix. 57-60.) 


(19) Γ[Εἶπέν τις αὐτῷ] ἀκολουθήσω σοι ὅπου ἐὰν 
ἀπέρχῃ. (20) καὶ “λέγει αὐτῷ ὁ ᾿Ιησοῦς" αἱ ἀλώπεκες 
φωλεοὺς ἔ ἔχουσιν καὶ τὰ πετεινὰ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ κατασκηνώ- 
σεις, ὁ δὲ υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου οὐκ ἔχει ποῦ τὴν κεφαλὴν 
κλίνῃ. (21) ἕτερος δὲ εἶπεν αὐτῷ᾽ ἐπίτρεψόν μοι 
πρῶτον ἀπελθεῖν καὶ θάψαι τὸν πατέρα μου" (69 
λέγει δὲ αὐτῷ" ἀκολούθει μοι, καὶ ἄφες τοὺς νεκροὺς 
θάψαι τοὺς ἑαυτῶν νεκρούς (p. 10). 


18. (Sr. Marr. ix. 37, 38; Sr. Luxe x. 2.) 


(37) Λέγει αὐτοῖς ἰτοῖς μαθηταῖς αὐτοῦ 7" ὁ μὲν 
θερισμὸς πολύς, of δὲ ἐ ἐργάται ὀλίγοι" (38) “δεήθητε οὖν 
τοῦ κυρίου τοῦ θερισμοῦ ὅπως ἐκβάλῃ ἐργάτας εἰς τὸν 
θερισμὸν αὐτοῦ (p. 12). 


134 THE SAYINGS OF JESUS 


19. (Sr. Marr. x. 16": Sr. Luxe x. 3.) 
(16) *Idov ἐγὼ ἀποστέλλω ὑμᾶς ws πρόβατα ἐν 
μέσῳ λύκων (p. 13). 


20. (St. Marr. x. 12, 13; Sr. Luxe x. 5, 6.) 

(12) Εἰσερχόμενοι δὲ εἰς τὴν οἰκίαν ἀσπάσασθε 
αὐτήν" (19) καὶ ἐὰν ἢ ἡ οἰκία ἀξία, ἐλθάτω ἡ εἰρήνη 
ὑμῶν ἐπ᾽ αὐτήν' ἐὰν δὲ μὴ ἢ ἀξία, ἥ εἰρήνη ὑμῶν πρὸς 
ὑμᾶς ἐπιστραφήτω. (Preceded by some words whick 
can still be supplied with some degree of certainty 
from St. Luke x. 4: μὴ βαστάζετε βαλλάντιον, μὴ 
πήραν, μὴ ὑποδήματα, καὶ μηδένα κατὰ τὴν ὁδὸν ἀσπά- 


σησθε [1.6.. «do not stop ”]) (p. 79). 


21. (St. Marr. x. 10°; Sr. Luxe x. 7°.) 
(10) "Αξίος γὰρ ὁ ἐργάτης τῆς τροφῆς αὐτοῦ. 


Preceded by some such words as St. Luke x. 7: ἐν 


~ i aoe 7 oS \ , Ν 
αὐτῃ TH Οοἰκιᾳ μένετε, ἔσθοντες καὶ TLVOVTES TA T ap 


αὐτῶν (p. 12). 


22. (St. Marr. x. 15; St. Lure x. 12.) 

(15) [Αμὴν] λέγω ὑμῖν: ἀνεκτότερον ἔσται γῇ 
Σοδόμων καὶ L'oudppwy [or in place of the last four 
words, Σοδόμοις] ἐν τῇ ἡμέρᾳ [ἐκείνῃ ἢ κρίσεως ?| ἢ τῇ 
πόλει ἐκείνη. (Preceded, according to St. Luke x. 8-11, 
by some such words as follow: εἰς ἣν ἂν πόλιν εἰσέρ- 
χήσθε κ. δέχωνται ὑμᾶς, ἐσθίετε τ. παρατιθέμενα ὑμῖν K. 
λέγετε αὐτοῖς" ἤγγικεν ἡ βασ. τ. θεοῦ. εἰς ἣν δ᾽ ἂν 
πόλιν εἰσέλθητε kK. μὴ δέχωνται ὑμᾶς, ἐξελθόντες εἰς τ. 
πλατείας αὑτῆς εἴπατε" κ. τ. κονιορτὸν τ. κολληθέντα 
ἡμῖν ἐκ. τ. πόλεως ὑμῶν εἰς τ. πόδας ἀπομασσόμεθα 


ὑμῖν) (p. 13). 


THE TEXT 135 


23. (St. Marr. xi. 21-23; Sr. Luxe x. 13-15.) 


(21) Οὐαί σοι, XopaCetv, οὐαί σοι, ByOcaidav: ὅτι 
εἰ ἐν Γύρῳ καὶ Σιδῶνι ἐγένοντο αἱ δυνάμεις αἱ γενόμεναι 
ἐν ὑμῖν, πάλαι ἂν ἐν σάκκῳ καὶ σποδῷ μετενόησαν. 
(22) πλὴν [λέγω ὑμῖν] Τύρῳ καὶ Σιδῶνι ἀνεκτότερον 
yA 9 - , , οὶ 3 a“ ’ μὴ a . 6 a 
εσται [ἐν ἥμερᾳ κρίσεως ? ἐν τῇ κρίσει ?] ἢ upiv. (23) 

Α ’ , 2 RA 5) χὰ ¢ , 4 
καὶ σύ, ἹΚαφαρναούμ, μὴ ἕως οὐρανοῦ ὑψωθήσῃ; ἕως 
“ 
ἄδου καταβήσῃ (p. 17). . 


[24. (ὅτ. Marr. x. 40; Sr. Luxe x. 16.)] 


[Ὁ δεχόμενος ὑμᾶς ἐμὲ δέχεται, καὶ ὁ ἐμὲ δεχόμενος 
δέχεται τὸν ἀποστείλαντά pe] (p. 86). 


25. (St. Marr. xi. 25-27; Sr. Luxe x. 21, 22.) 


(25) ᾿Εν ἐκείνῳ τῷ καιρῷ εἶπεν" ἐξομολογοῦμαί σοι, 

’ nw 9 “ Α wa a “ 
πάτερ κύριε τοῦ οὐρανοῦ καὶ τῆς γῆς» ὅτι ἔκρυψας ταῦτα 
ἀπὸ σοφῶν καὶ συνετῶν καὶ ἀπεκάλυψας αὐτὰ νηπίοις" 
(96) ναί, ὁ πατήρ, ὅτι οὕτως εὐδοκία ἐγένετο ἔμπροσ- 
θέν cov. (27) πάντα μοι παρεδόθη ὑπὸ τοῦ πατρός, 
% τ Α » A eX 9 4A ε A 3 κ A 
καὶ οὐδεὶς ἔγνω [τὸν υἱὸν εἰ μὴ ὃ πατήρ οὐδὲ] TOV 
, » 9 A e «λ 4 OR , e 
πατέρα [τις ἔγνω] εἰ μὴ ὁ vlog Kat ᾧ ἐὰν βούληται ὁ 


υἱὸς ἀποκαλύψαι (p. 17). 


26. (St. Marr. xiii. 16, 17; Sr. Luxe x. 23°, 24.) 


(16) “Ὑμῶν μακάριοι of ὀφθαλμοί, ὅτι βλέπουσιν, καὶ 
Sen Chita Ψ 9 , : a8 κι , 
τὰ ὦτα [ὑμῶν], ὅτι ἀκούουσιν. (17) [ἀμὴν γὰρ] λέγω 
ὑμῖν, ὅτι πολλοὶ προφῆται [καὶ βασιλεῖς] ἐπεθύμησαν 
ἰδεῖν α βλέπετε καὶ οὐκ εἶδαν, καὶ ἀκοῦσαι ἃ ἀκούετε, 

καὶ οὐκ ἤκουσαν (p. 25). 


136 THE SAYINGS OF JESUS 


27. (Sr. Marr. vi. 9-13; Sr. Luxe xi. 2—4.) 

[(9) Πάτερ, (11) τὸν ἄρτον ἡμῶν τὸν ἐπιούσιον δὸς 
ἡμῖν σήμερον, (19) καὶ ἄφες ἡμῖν τὰ ὀφειλήματα ἡμῶν, 
ὡς καὶ ἡμεῖς ἀφήκαμεν τοῖς ὀφειλέταις ἡμῶν, (13) καὶ 
μὴ εἰσενέγκῃς ἡμᾶς εἰς πειρασμόν.] (p. 69). 


28. (Sr. Marr. vii. 7-11; Sr. Luxe xi. 9-13.) 


(7) Αἰτεῖτε, καὶ δοθήσεται ὑμῖν' ζητεῖτε, καὶ εὑρήσετε" 
«ς -“ 

κρούετε καὶ ἀνοιγήσεται ὑμῖν. (8) πᾶς γὰρ ὁ αἰτῶν 
λαμβάνει, καὶ ὁ ζητῶν εὑρίσκει, καὶ τῷ κρούοντι ἀνοι- 
γήσεται. (9) ἢ τίς ἐστιν ἐξ ὑμῶν ἄνθρωπος, ὃ ὃν αἰτήσει 
ε εχ 9 a τὰν 4 , 5 ὃ ΄ 3. ἧς xv 
ὁ υἱος αὐτοῦ ἄρτον, μὴ λίθον ἐπιδώσει αὐτῷ; (10) 7 

49 4 ee? a + 9 , 3, + κα 
καὶ ἰχθὺν αἰτήσει, μὴ ὄφιν ἐπιδώσει αὐτῷ, (11) εἰ οὖν 
e e AY τς ¥ , ° ‘ , “ 
ὑμεῖς πονηροὶ ὄντες οἴδατε [δόματα] ἀγαθὰ διδόναι τοῖς 
τέκνοις ὑμῶν, πόσῳ μᾶλλον ὁ πατὴρ ὁ ἐξ οὐρανοῦ δώσει 
ἀγαθὰ τοῖς αἰτοῦσιν αὐτόν; (p. 8). 


29. (Sr. Marr. xii. 22, 23, 25, 27, 28, 30, 43-45: 
Sr. Luxe xi. 14, 17, 19, 20, 23-26.) 


(22) [ἐθεράπευσεν] δαιμονιζόμενον κωφόν, [ὥστε 
τὸν κωφὸν λαλεῖν, (23) καὶ [ἐξίσταντο] [πάντες] of 
ὄχλοι... (25) πᾶσα βασιλεία μερισθεῖσα ἐφ᾽ ἑαυτὴν 
ἐρημοῦται : (η καὶ εἰ ἐγὼ ἐν Βεελζεβοὺλ 
ἐκβάλλω τὰ δαιμόνια, οἱ υἱοὶ ὑμῶν ἐν τίνι ἐκβάλλουσιν; 
διὰ τοῦτο αὐτοὶ κριταὶ ἔσονται ὑμῶν" (28) εἰ δὲ ἐν 
πνεύματι θεοῦ ἐγὼ ἐκβάλλω τὰ δαιμόνια, ἄρα ἔφθασεν 
ἐφ' ὑμᾶς ὴ βασιλεία τοῦ θεοῦ. Ἐς . (30) ὁ μὴ ὧν μετ᾽ 
ἐμοῦ κατ᾽ ἐμοῦ ἐστιν, καὶ ὁ μὴ συνάγων μετ᾽ ἐμοῦ 
σκορπίζει. . . (48) ὅταν τὸ ἀκάθαρτον πνεῦμα 
ἐξέλθῃ ἀπὸ τοῦ τ anne: διέρχεται δι᾽ ἀνύδρων τόπων 


THE TEXT 167 


ζητοῦν ἀνάπαυσιν καὶ οὐχ εὑρίσκει, (44) [τότε] λέγει" 
εἰς τὸν οἰκόν μου ἐπιστρέψω ὅθεν ἐξῆλθον" καὶ ἐλθὸν 
εὑρίσκει σκολάζοντα [καὶ] σεσαρωμένον καὶ κεκοσμη- 
μένον. (45) τότε πορεύεται καὶ παραλαμβάνει μεθ᾽ 
ἑαυτοῦ ἑπτὰ πνεύματα πονηρότερα ἑαυτοῦ καὶ εἰσελ- 
θόντα κατοικεῖ ἐκεῖ, καὶ γίνεται τὰ ἔσχατα τοῦ ἀνθρώ- 
που ἐκείνου χείρονα τῶν πρώτων (pp. 21, 24). 


30. (Sr. Marr. xii. 38, 39, 41, 42; Sr. Luxe xi. 16, 
29-32.) 

(38) [They said]: θέλομεν ἀπὸ σοῦ σημεῖον ἰδεῖν. 
(99) ὁ δὲ elev" γενεὰ πονηρὰ καὶ μοιχαλὶς σημεῖον 
ἐπιζητεῖ, καὶ σημεῖον οὐ δοθήσεται αὐτῇ εἰ μὴ τὸ 
σημεῖον ᾿Ιωνᾶ' ὥσπερ γὰρ ἐγένετο ’Ιωνᾶς τοῖς Νιινευεί- 
ταις σημεῖον, οὕτως ἔσται καὶ ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου τῇ 
γενεᾷ ταύτῃ. (41) ἄνδρες Νινευεῖται ἀναστήσονται 
ἐν τῇ κρίσει μετὰ τῆς γενεᾶς “ταύτης καὶ κατακρινοῦσιν 
αὐτήν, ὅτι μετενόησαν εἰς τὸ κήρυγμα Ἰωνᾶ, καὶ ἰδοὺ 
πλεῖον ᾿Ιωνᾷ ὧδε. (42) βασίλισσα νότου ἐγερθήσεται 
> Ὥς ’ Ν ~ ies , 4 a 
ἐν τῇ κρίσει μετὰ τῆς γενεᾶς ταύτης καὶ κατακρινεῖ 
αὐτήν, ὅτι ἦλθεν ἐκ τῶν περάτων τῆς γῆς ἀκοῦσαι 
τὴν σοφίαν Σολομῶνος, καὶ ἰδοὺ πλεῖον Σολομῶνος 


ὧδε (p. 22). 
91. (Sr. Marr. v. 15; Sr. Luxe xi. 33.) 


(15) Οὐ καίουσιν λύχνον καὶ τιθέασιν αὐτὸν ὑπὸ 

Q , 9 7 he ek, A , ᾿ ’ rn 
Tov μόδιον, ἀλλ’ ἐπὶ τὴν λυχνίαν, Kal λάμπει πᾶσιν 
τοῖς ἐν τῇ οἰκίᾳ (p. 53), 


92. (St. Mart. vi. 22, 23; Sr. Luxe xi. 34, 35.) 
(22) Ὃ λύχνος τοῦ σώματός ἐστιν ὁ ὀφθαλμός 
[cov]: ἐὰν οὖν 7 ὁ ὀφθαλμός σου ἁπλοῦς, ὅλον τὸ 


128 THE SAYINGS OF JESUS 


98 A 
σῶμα σου φωτεινὸν ἔσται" (88) ἐὰν δὲ ὁ ὀφθαλμός 
σου πονηρὸς , ὅλον τὸ σῶμά σου σκοτεινὸν ἔσται. εἰ 
οὖν τὸ φῶς τὸ ἐν σοὶ σκότος ἐστίν, τὸ σκότος πόσον; 


(p. 4). 


33. (St. Marr. xxiii. 4, 13, 23, 25, 27, 29, 30-32, 34-36 ; 
St. Luxe xi. 46, 52, 42, 39, 44, 47-52.) 


(4) [Perhaps a “Woe”] δΔεσμεύουσιν φορτία 
βαρέα καὶ ἐπιτιθέασιν ἐπὶ τοὺς ὥμους τῶν ἀνθρώπων, 
καὶ αὐτοὶ τῷ δακτύλῳ αὐτῶν οὐ θέλουσιν κινῆσαι 
αὐτα. 

(19) οὐαὶ ὑμῖν τοῖς Φαρισαίοις, ὅτι κλείετε τὴν 
βασιλείαν τοῦ θεοῦ ἔμπροσθεν τῶν ἀνθρώπων" ὑμεῖς 
γὰρ οὐκ εἰσέρχεσθε οὐδὲ τοὺς εἰσερχομένους ἀφίετε 
εἰσελθεῖν. 

(23) οὐαὶ ὑμῖν τοῖς Φαρισαίοις, ὅτι ᾿ἀποδεκατοῦτε 
τὸ ἡδύοσμον καὶ τὸ ἄνηθον καὶ τὸ κύμινον, καὶ ἀφήκατε 
τὰ βαρύτερα τοῦ νόμου, τὴν κρίσιν καὶ τὸ ἔλεος, 

(25) [Perhaps a « Woe”] [νῦν] ὑμεῖς οἱ Φαρισαῖοι, 
καθαριζετε τὸ ἔξωθεν τοῦ ποτηρίου καὶ τῆς παροψίδος, 
ἔσωθεν δὲ γέμουσιν ἐξ ἁρπαγῆς καὶ ἀκρασίας. 

(St. Luke xi. 44) οὐαὶ ὑμῖν, ὅτι ἐστὲ ὡς οἱ τάφοι 
οἱ ἄδηλοι, καὶ οἱ ἄνθρωποι οἱ περιπατοῦντες ἐπάνω 
οὐκ οἴδασιν. 


[(St. Matthew 27) οὐαὶ ὑμῖν τοῖς ,Ῥαρισαίοις, ὅτι 
παρομοιάζετε τάφοις κεκονιαμένοις, οἵτινες ἔξωθεν μὲν 
φαίνονται ὡραῖοι, ἔσωθεν δὲ γέμουσιν ὀστέων νεκρῶν 
καὶ πάσης ἀκαθαρσίας. 


et a ‘ A A 
(29-32) οὐαὶ ὑμῖν, Sri οἰκοδομεῖτε τοὺς τάφους τῶν 
“ A , “ἂν 3 a e / 
προφητῶν (30) καὶ λέγετε" εἰ ἤμεθα ἐν ταῖς ἡμέραις 
τῶν πατέρων ἡμῶν, οὐκ ἂν ἤμεθα αὐτῶν κοινωνοὶ ἐν 


THE TEXT 139 


/ ἊΝ ef “ A 31 Ψ aA 
τῷ αἵματι τῶν προφητῶν. (31) ὥστε μαρτυρεῖτε 
σ᾿ ~ , A 
ἑαυτοῖς, OTL υἱοί ἐστε τῶν φονευσάντων τοὺς προφήτας, 
[(82) καὶ ὑμεῖς πληρώσατε τὸ μέτρον τῶν πατέρων ὑμῶν]. 
(θ4-96) διὰ τοῦτο καὶ ἡ Σοφία τοῦ θεοῦ εἶπεν" 
9 ’ Ν ° e lad , 4 
ἀποστέλλω πρὸς [els] ὑμᾶς προφήτας καὶ 
σοφοὺς καὶ γραμματεῖς" ἐξ αὐτῶν ἀποκτενεῖτε 
καὶ διώξετε, (35) ὅπως ἔλθῃ ἐφ᾽ ὑμᾶς πᾶν αἷμα 
9 , 9 A A A 9 A 4 a+ 
ἐκχυννόμενον ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς ἀπὸ αἵματος "Αβελ 
Ψ ed 7, / εἴ 3 ' A 
ἕως αἵματος Zaxaplov, ov ἐφονεύσατε μεταξὺ 
τοῦ ναοῦ καὶ τοῦ θυσιαστηρίου. (96) ἀμὴν 
λέγω ὑμῖν, ἥξει ταῦτα πάντα ἐπὶ τὴν γενεὰν 


ταύτην (p. 96). 
345, (Sr. Marr. x. 26-33; Sr. Luxe xii. 2-9.) 


(26) Οὐδέν ἐστιν κεκαλυμμένον ὃ οὐκ ἀποκαλυφθή- 
Q Woe 3 , >» ’ 

σεται; καὶ κρυπτὸν ὃ οὐ γνωσθήσεται. (27) ὃ λέγω 
ὑμῖν ἐν τῇ σκοτίᾳ, εἴπατε ἐν τῷ φωτί: καὶ ὃ εἰς TO 
ΠΕ eee 2 , αὐτὰ - ’ 4 ἢ 
οὖς ἀκούετε: κηρύξατε ἐπὶ τῶν δωμάτων. (38) καὶ μὴ 
φοβεῖσθε ἀπὸ τῶν ἀποκτεννόντων τὸ σῶμα; τὴν δὲ 
ψυχὴν μὴ δυναμένων ἀποκτεῖναι" φοβεῖσθε δὲ μᾶλλον 
τὸν δυνάμενον καὶ ψυχὴν καὶ σῶμα ἀπολέσαι ἐν γεέννη. 
(29) οὐχὶ δύο [πέντε] στρουθία ἀσσαρίου [ἀσσαρίων B’] 
πωλεῖται; καὶ ἕν ἐξ αὐτῶν οὐ πεσεῖται ἐπὶ τὴν γῆν ἄνευ 
τοῦ θεοῦ. (30) ὑμῶν δὲ καὶ αἱ τρίχες τῆς κεφαλῆς 
πᾶσαι ἠριθμημέναι εἰσίν. (31) μὴ [οὖν] φοβεῖσθε" 
πολλῷ [yet πολλῶν already stood in Q] στρουθίων 
διαφέρετε ὑμεῖς. (82) πᾶς οὖν ὅστις ὁμολογήσει ἐν 
ἐμοὶ ἔμπροσθεν τῶν ἀνθρώπων; ὁμολογήσει καὶ 6 υἱὸς 

ΓΎ , e , “ A ᾽ 9 »"» ἂν 
τοῦ ἀνθρώπου [vel ὁμολογήσω κἀγὼ] ἐν αὐτῷ ἔμπροσθεν 
~ 3 , ~ “ ΦΨ \ 3 , , 
τῶν ἀγγέλων τοῦ θεου- (33) ὅστις δὲ ἀρνήσηται 
με ἔμπροσθεν τῶν ἀνθρώπων, ἀρνήσομαι κἀγὼ αὐτὸν 


ἔμπροσθεν τῶν ἀγγέλων τοῦ θεοῦ (pp. 14, 82). 


140 THE SAYINGS OF JESUS 
34°. (Sr. Marr. xii. 32; Sr. Luxe xii. 10.) 


‘ “"- A 
(92) καὶ ὃς ἐὰν εἴπῃ λόγον κατὰ τοῦ υἱοῦ τοῦ 
? , μ , tt a ee ot b) A 
ἀνθρώπου, ἀφεθήσεται αὐτῷ - ὃς δ᾽ ἂν εἴπῃ κατὰ τοῦ 
, “ € ’ χὰ 9 , ° τῆς: 
πνεύματος τοῦ ἁγίου, οὐκ ἀφεθήσεται αὐτῷ (p. 91). 


35. (Sr. Marr. vi. 25-33; Sr. Luxe xii. 22-31.) 


(#5) Διὰ τοῦτο λέγω. ὑμῖν, μὴ μεριμνᾶτε τῇ ψυχῇ 
ὑμῶν τί φάγητε, μηδὲ τῷ σώματι ὑμῶν τί ἐνδύσησθε: 
οὐχὶ ἡ ψυχὴ πλεῖόν ἐστιν τῆς τροφῆς καὶ τὸ σῶμα 
TOU ἐνδύματος; (26) ἐμβλέψατε εἰς τοὺς κόρακας [τὰ 
πετεινὰ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ |, ὅτι οὐ σπείρουσιν οὐδὲ θερί- 
ζουσιν οὐδὲ συνάγουσιν εἰς ἀποθήκας. καὶ ὁ θεὸς τρέφει 
αὐτούς" οὐχ ὑμεῖς μάλλον διαφέρετε αὐτῶν; (27) τίς δὲ 
ἐξ ὑ ὑμῶν μεριμνῶν δύναται προσθεῖναι ἐπὶ τὴν ἡλικίαν 
αὐτοῦ πῆχυν ἕνα; os καὶ περι i ἐνδύματος τί μεριμνᾶτε; ; 
καταμάθετε τὰ κρίνα πῶς αὐξάνουσιν' οὐ κοπιῶσιν οὐδὲ 
νήθουσιν" (99) λέγω δὲ ὑμῖν, [ὅτι] οὐδὲ Σολομὼν ἐν 
πάσῃ τῇ δόξῃ αὐτοῦ περιεβάλετο & ὡς ἕν τούτων. (30) 
εἰ δὲ ἐν ἀγρῷ τὸν χόρτον σήμερον ὄντα καὶ αὔριον εἰς 
κλίβανον βαλλόμενον ὁ θεὸς οὕτως ἀμφιέννυσιν; οὐ 
πολλῷ μᾶλλον ὑμᾶς, ὀλιγόπιστοι; (91) μὴ οὖν μεριμ- 
νήσητε λέγοντες - τί φάγωμεν ; ἢ τί πίωμεν; ἢ τί 
περιβαλώμεθα͵ ; (82) πάντα γὰρ ταῦτα τὰ ἔθνη [τοῦ 
κόσμου] ἐπιζητοῦσιν. οἶδεν γὰρ ὁ πατὴρ ὑμῶν ὅτι 
χρήζετε τούτων ἁπάντων. (33) ζητεῖτε δὲ τὴν βασι- 
λείαν αὐτοῦ, καὶ ταῦτα πάντα προστεθήσεται ὑμῖν 


(p- 4). 
36. (Sr. Marr. vi. 19-21; Sr. Luxe xii. 33, 34.) 
(19) Μὴ θησαυρίζετε ὑμῖν θησαυροὺς ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς» 
ὅπου σὴς καὶ βρῶσις ἀφανιζει; καὶ ὅπου κλέπται διορύσ- 
σουσιν καὶ κλέπτουσιν: (30) θησαυρίζετε δὲ ὑμῖν 


THE TEXT 141 


θησαυροὺς ἐν οὐρανοῖς, ὅπου οὔτε σὴς οὔτε βρῶσις 
ἀφανίζει; καὶ ὅπου κλέπται οὐ διορύσσουσιν οὐδὲ 
κλέπτουσιν: (21) ὅπου yap ἐστιν ὁ θησαυρός σου 
e A ᾽ -~ +o Wr Ae , e A 

[ὑμῶν]: ἐκεῖ ἔσται καὶ ἡ καρδία σου [ὑμῶν] (pp. 66, 4). 


37. (St. Mart. xxiv. 43-51; Sr. Luxe xii. 39, 40, 
42-46.) 


(43) ’Exeivo δὲ γινώσκετε, ὅτι εἰ ἤδει ὁ οἰκοδεσπότης 
ποίᾳ φυλακῇ ὁ κλέπτης ἔρχεται, ἐγρηγόρησεν ἂν καὶ 
οὐκ ἂν εἴασεν διορυχθῆναι τὴν οἰκίαν αὐτοῦ. (4) [διὰ 
τοῦτο καὶ ὑμεῖς γίνεσθε ἕτοιμοι, ὅτι fj οὐ δοκεῖτε ἁ ὥρᾳ ὁ 
υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου ἔρχεται (45) τίς ἄρα ἐστὶν ὁ 
πιστὸς δοῦλος καὶ φρόνιμος: ὃν κατέστησεν ὁ κύριος ἐπὶ 
τῆς οἰκετείας αὐτοῦ τοῦ δοῦναι αὐτοῖς τὴν τροφὴν ἐν 
καιρῷ; (6) μακάριος ὁ δοῦλος ἐκεῖνος ὃν ἐλθὼν ὁ 
κύριος αὐτοῦ εὑρήσει οὕτως ποιοῦντα. (4) ἀμὴν λέγω 
ὑμῖν ὅτι ἐπὶ πᾶσιν τοῖς ὑπάρχουσιν αὐτοῦ καταστήσει 
αὐτόν. (48) ἐὰν δὲ εἴπη ὁ [κακὸς] δοῦλος ἐ ἐκεῖνος ἐν τῇ 
καρδίᾳ αὐτοῦ" (49) χρονίζει μου ὁ κύριος: καὶ ἄρξηται 
τύπτειν τοὺς συνδούλους αὐτοῦ, ἐσθίῃ δὲ καὶ πίνῃ μετὰ 
τῶν μεθυόντων, (50) ἥξει ὁ κύριος, τοῦ δούλου ἐκείνου 
ἐν ἡμέρᾳ ἢ ἢ οὐ προσδοκᾷ καὶ ἐν ὥρᾳ 4 οὐ γινώσκει; 
(51) καὶ διχοτομήσει αὐτὸν καὶ τὸ μέρος αὐτοῦ μετὰ 
τῶν ὑποκριτῶν θήσει (p. 91). 


38. (Sr. Marr. x. 34, 35, 36; Sr. Luxe xii. 51, 53.) 


(34) Aoxeire, ὅτι ἦλθον βαλεῖν εἰρήνην ἐπὶ τὴν γῆν; 
οὐκ ἦλθον βαλεῖν εἰρήνην ἀλλὰ μάχαιραν. (35) ἦλθον 
γὰρ διχάσαι ἄνθρωπον κατὰ τοῦ πατρὸς αὐτοῦ καὶ 
θυγατέρα κατὰ τῆς μητρὸς αὐτῆς καὶ νύμφην κατὰ τῆς 
πενθερᾶς αὐτῆς. (96) [καὶ ἐχθροὶ τοῦ ἀνθρώπου οἱ 
οἰκιακοὶ αὐτοῦ] (p. 85). 


149 THE SAYINGS OF JESUS 
39. (St. Marr. v. 25, 26; Sr. Luxe xii. 58, 59.) 


(25) Ἴσθι εὐνοῶν τῷ ἀντιδίκῳ cov ταχὺ ἕως ὅτου εἶ 
μετ᾽ αὐτοῦ ἐν τῇ ὁδῷ" μή ποτέ σε παραδῷ ὁ ἀντίδικος 
τῷ κριτῇ καὶ ὁ κριτὴς τῷ ὑπηρέτῃ, καὶ εἰς φυλακὴν 
Brn Orion (26) [ἀμὴν] λέγω σοι, οὐ μὴ ἐξέλθῃς ἐκεῖθεν, 
ἕως ἂν ἀποδῷς τὸν ἔσχατον ρον (p. 54). 


40. (Sr. Marr. xiii. 31-33; Sr. Luxe xiii. 18-21.) 


(33) [καὶ πάλιν εἶπεν" τίνι ὁμοιώσω τὴν βασιλείαν 
τοῦ θεοῦ; ὁμοία ἐστὶν ζύμῃ, ἣ ἣν λαβοῦσα γυνὴ ἐνέκρυψεν 
εἰς ἀλεύρου σάτα τρία, ἕως οὗ ἐζυμώθη ὅλον. This 
was most probably preceded by: τίνι ὁμοία ἐστὶν ἡ 
βασιλεία τοῦ θεοῦ, καὶ τίνι ὁμοιώσω αὐτήν; ὁμοία ἐστὶν 
κόκκῳ σινάπεως, ὃν λαβὼν ἄνθρωπος ἔσπειρεν ἐν TH 
ἀγρῷ αὐτοῦ, καὶ ηὔξησεν καὶ γίνεται (cts) δένδρον καὶ 
τὰ πετεινὰ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ κατασκηνοῖ ἐν τοῖς κλάδοις 


αὐτοῦ (p. 26). 


41. (Sr. Marr. vii. 13, 14; Sr. Luxe xiii. 24.) 


(13) Εἰσέλθατε διὰ τῆς στενῆς πύλης" ὅτι πλατεῖα 
[7 πύλη] καὶ εὐρύχωρος ἡ ὁδὸς a ἀπάγουσα εἰς τὴν 
ἀπώλειαν, καὶ πολλοί εἰσιν οἱ εἰσερχόμενοι ov αὐτῆς. 
(14) ὅτι στενὴ ἡ πύλη καὶ τεθλιμμένη ἡ ὁδὸς ἡ 
ἀπάγουσα εἰς τὴν ζωήν, καὶ ὀλίγοι εἰσὶν οἱ εὑρίσ- 
κοντες αὐτήν (p. 67). 


42. (St. Marr. viii. 11, 12; Sr. Luxe xiii. 25, 29.) 

(11) Λέγω ὑμῖν, ὅτι ἀπὸ ἀνατολῶν καὶ δυσμῶν 
ἥξουσιν καὶ ἀνακλιθήσονται μετὰ ᾿Αβραὰμ καὶ ᾿Ισαὰκ 
καὶ ᾿Ιακὼβ ἐν τῇ βασιλείᾳ τοῦ θεοῦ" (19) οἱ δὲ υἱοὶ τῆς 
βασιλείας ἐξελεύσονται [ἐκβληθήσονται] ἔξω" ἐκεῖ ἔσται 
ὁ κλαυθμὸς καὶ ὁ βρυγμὸς τῶν ὀδόντων (p. 77). 


THE TEXT 148 


43. (Sr. Marr. xxiii. 37-39; Sr. Luxe xiii. 34, 35.) 


(37) “Ἱερουσαλήμ, Ἱερουσαλήμ, ἡ ἀποκτείνουσα τοὺς 
προφήτας καὶ λιθοβολοῦσα τοὺς ἀπεσταλμένους πρὸς 
αὐτήν, ποσάκις ἠθέλησα ἐπισυναγαγεῖν τὰ τέκνα σου, 
ὃν τρόπον ὄρνις [ἐπισυνάγει] τὰ νοσσία [αὐτῆς] ὑπὸ 
τὰς πτέρυγας, καὶ οὐκ ἠθελήσατε" (38) ἰδοὺ. ἀφίεται 
ὑμῖν ὁ οἶκος ὑμῶν ἔρημος. (39) λέγω [γὰρ] ὑ ὑμῖν, οὐ μή 
με ἴδητε ἀπ᾽ ἄρτι ἕως ἂν [ἥξῃ ὅτε] εἴπητε" εὐλογημένος 
ὁ ἐρχόμενος ἐν ὀνόματι κυρίου (p. 29). 


44. (Sr. Marr. xxili. 12; Sr. Luxe xiv. 11.) 


(12) “Ὅστις ὑψώσει ἑαυτὸν ταπεινωθήσεται, καὶ 

ὅστις ταπεινώσει ἑαυτὸν ὑψωθήσεται (p. 29). 
45. (Sr. Marr. x. 37; Sr. Luxe xiv. 26.) 

(37) [O φιλῶν πατέρα ἢ μητέρα ὑπὲρ ἐμὲ οὐκ ἔστιν 
μου ἄξιος" καὶ ὁ φιλῶν υἱὸν ἢ θυγατέρα ὑπὲρ ἐμὲ οὐκ 
ἔστιν μου ἄξιος] (p. 85). 

46. (Sr. Marr. x. 38, St. Luxe xiv. 27.) 

(38) Ὃς ov λαμβάνει τὸν σταυρὸν αὐτοῦ Kai ἀκολου- 
θεῖ ὀπίσω μου, οὐκ ἔστιν μου ἄξιος (p. 86). 

47. (St. Marr. v. 13; Sr. Luxe xiv. 34, 35.) 

(13) “Ὑμεῖς ἐστε τὸ ἅλας [τῆς yiis]* ἐὰν δὲ τὸ ἅλας 
μωρανθῇ, ἐν τίνι ἁλισθήσεται; εἰς οὐδὲν ἰσχύει ἔτι εἰ μὴ 
βληθὲν ἔξω καταπατεῖσθαι ὑπὸ τῶν ἀνθρώπων (p. 53). 

48. (Sr. Mart. xviii. 12, 13; Sr. Luxe xv. 4-7.) 

(12) Τί ὑμῖν δοκεῖ; ἐὰν γένηταί τινι ἀνθρώπῳ ἑκατὸν 
πρόβατα καὶ πλανηθῇ ἕν ἐξ αὐτῶν, οὐχὶ ἀφήσει τὰ 


144 THE SAYINGS OF JESUS 


ἐνενήκοντα ἐννέα ἐπὶ τὰ ὄρη καὶ πορευθεὶς ζητεῖ τὸ 
πλανώμενον; hee καὶ ἐὰν γένηται εὑρεῖν αὐτό, [ἀμὴν] 
λέγω ὑμῖν, ὅτι χαίρει ἐπ᾽ αὐτῷ μάλλον 7 ἐπὶ τοῖς ἐνενή- 
κοντα ἐννέα τοῖς μὴ rookies (p. 91). 


49. (Sr. Marr. vi. 24; Sr. Luxe xvi. 13.) 


(24) Οὐδεὶς δύναται δυσὶ κυρίοις δουλεύειν" ἢ γὰρ τὸν 
ἕνα μισήσει καὶ τὸν ἕτερον ἀγαπήσει, ἢ ἑνὸς ἀνθέξεται 
4 “»4γ͵ε , , 3 , mm , 
καὶ Tov ἑτέρου καταφρονήσει" ov δύνασθε θεῷ δουλεύειν 

καὶ papwva (p. 4). 


50. (Sr. Marr. xi. 12, 13; Sr. Luxe xvi. 16.) 


(18) O: “προφῆται καὶ ὁ νόμος ἕως ᾿Ιωάννου" ἀπὸ 
τότε ἕως ἄρτι ἡ βασιλεία τοῦ θεοῦ βιάζεται, καὶ 
βιασταὶ ἁρπάζουσιν αὐτήν [vel : ᾿Απὸ τῶν ἡμερῶν 
᾿Ιωάννου ἕως κτλ. πάντες γὰρ οἱ προφῆται καὶ ὁ 

, 4 T r Ὶ 
νόμος ἕως ᾿Ιωάννου ἐπροφήτευσαν] (p. 15). 


51. (ὅτ. Marr. v. 18; Sr. Luxe xvi. 17.) 

(18) [Αμὴν λέγω ὑμῖν], ἕως ἂν παρέλθῃ ὁ οὐρανὸς 
καὶ ἡ γῆ, ἰῶτα ν ἢ μία κεραία οὐ μὴ παρέλθη ἀπὸ 
τοῦ νόμου (p. 53). 

52. (St. Marr. v. 32; Sr. Luxe xvi. 18.) 


1) [Εγὼ λέγω ὑ ὑμῖν"] πᾶς ὁ ἀπολύων τὴν γυναῖκα 
αὐτοῦ ποιεῖ αὐτὴν μοιχευθῆναι, καὶ ὃς ἐὰν ἀπολελυμένην 


γαμήσῃ, μοιχᾶται (p. 54). 
58. (St. Mart. xviii. 7; St. Luxe xvii. 1.) 


(7) ᾿Ανάγκη ἐλθεῖν τὰ σκάνδαλα, πλὴν οὐαὶ τῷ 
ἀνθρώπῳ, δι’ οὗ τὸ σκάνδαλον ἔρχεται (p. 28). 


THE TEXT 145 


54. (Sr. Marr. xviil. 15, 21, 22; Sr. Luxe xvii. 3, 4.) 


(15) ’Eav ἁμαρτήσῃ ὁ ἀδελφός σου, ἔλεγξον αὐτόν' 
ἐᾶν σου ἀκούσῃ, ἐκέρδησας τὸν ἀδελφόν σου.---- ---- - .. 
ποσάκις ἁμαρτήσει εἰς ἐμὲ ὃ ἀδελφός μου καὶ ἀφήσω 
αὐτῷ ; ἕως ἑπτάκις ; λέγει αὐτῷ ὁ ᾿Ιησοῦς: οὐ λέγω 


σοὶ ἕως ἑπτάκις, ἀλλὰ ἕως ΤΠ Στ Ὁ ἑπτά (Pp. 93). 


55. (Sr. Marr. xvii. 20°; Sr. Luxe xvii. 6.) 


i) Ἔν ἔ ἔχητε πίστιν ὡς κόκκον σινάπεως, ἐρεῖτε 
τῷ ὄρει TOUT" μετάβα ἔνθεν ἐκεῖ, καὶ μεταβήσεται 


(p. 91). 


56. (St. Marr. xxiv. 26, 27, 28, 37-41; Sr. Luxe 
xvii. 23, 24, 37, 26, 27, 34, 35.) 


(26) ᾿Εὰν οὖν εἴπωσιν ὑμῖν" ἰδοὺ ἐ ἐν τῇ ἐρήμῳ ἐστίν, 
μὴ ἐξέλθητε" ἰδοὺ ἐν τοῖς ταμείοις, μὴ πιστεύσητε" 
(27) ὥσπερ γὰρ ἡ ἀστραπὴ ἐξέρχεται ἀπὸ ἀνατολῶν 
καὶ φαίνεται ἕ ἕως δυσμῶν, οὕτως ἔσται 7 παρουσία τοῦ 
υἱοῦ τοῦ ἀνθρώπου (28) ὅπου ἐὰν ἢ τὸ πτῶμα, ἐκεῖ 
συναχθήσονται οἱ ἀετοί. 

(87) “ὥσπερ αἱ ἡμέραι τοῦ Νῶε, οὕτως ἔσται ἡ 
παρουσία τοῦ υἱοῦ τοῦ ἀνθρώπου" (38) ὡς γὰρ ἦσαν 
ἐν ταῖς ἡμέραις [ἐκείναις] ταῖς πρὸ τοῦ κατακλυσμοῦ 
τρώγοντες καὶ πίνοντες, γαμοῦντες καὶ γαμίζοντες, 
ἄχρι ἧς ἡμέρας εἰσῆλθεν Νῶε εἰς τὴν κιβωτόν, (89) καὶ 
οὐκ ἔγνωσαν ἕως ἦλθεν ὁ κατακλυσμὸς καὶ ἦρεν ἅπαντας, 
οὕτως ἔσται ἡ παρουσία τοῦ υἱοῦ τοῦ ἀνθρώπου. 

60 ἔ ἔσονται δύο ἐν τῷ ἀγρῷ, εἷς παραλαμβάνεται 
καὶ εἷς ἀφίεται" (41) ΤᾺ ἀλήθουσαι ἐν τῷ μύλῳ, μία 
παραλαμβάνεται καὶ μία ἀφίεται (p. 105). 

K 


146 THE SAYINGS OF JESUS 


57. (St. Marr. x. 39; Sr. Luxe xvii. 33.) 
(39) Ὁ εὑρὼν [ὃς ἐὰν εὕρη] τὴν ψυχὴν αὐτοῦ 


9 , e 9 , 4 
ἀπολέσει αὐτήν, καὶ ὃς ἂν ἀπολέσει [ὁ ἀπολεσας] τήν 


ψυχὴν αὐτοῦ εὑρήσει αὐτήν (p. 86). 


58. (St. Marr. xxv. 29; Sr. Luxe xix. 26.) 


(29) To ἔχοντι [παντὶ] δοθήσεται καὶ περισσευ- 
θήσεται" τοῦ δὲ μὴ ἔχοντος καὶ ὃ ἔχει ἀρθήσεται ἀπ’ 


αὐτοῦ (p. 34). 


59. (Sr. Mart. xix. 28; Sr. Luxe xxii. 28, 30.) 


(28) “Ὑμεῖς of ἀκολουθήσαντές Mot... καθίσεσθε 
ἐπὶ δώδεκα θρόνους κρίνοντες τοὺς δώδεκα φυλὰς τοῦ 


Ἰσραήλ (p. 95). 


II.—Lineuvistic CHARACTERISTICS 


Each of the three synoptists (St. Luke most 
markedly) possesses numerous verbal, stylistic, and 
grammatical peculiarities, even if the style of each 
be not distinctly formed and homogeneous. ‘These 
sections which we have here separated away from 
their present context do not possess such marked 
characteristics. It is therefore impossible, or at 
least unsafe, to uphold their homogeneity upon 
grounds of vocabulary and style. 


1 The best discussion of these is found in Hawkins, ‘‘ Hore 
Synoptic ” (1899), pp. 1 ff. 


VOCABULARY 


147 


A.—VOCABULARY 


(1) Vers 


Apart from εἶναι, we find in Q about 166 simple 
verbs (occurring in about 475 places) and about 82 
compound verbs (in about 168 places), namely :— 


ἀγαλλιᾶσθαι, 81 
ἀγαπᾶν, 6 (ter), 49 
αἴρειν, 2, 56, 58 
αἰτεῖν, 5, 28 (quin- 
uies 
ἀκολουθεῖν, 13, 17, 
(bis), 46, 59 
ἀκούειν, 12 (bis), 
13, 14 (ter), 26 
(quater), 30, 34, 
54 
ἀλήθειν, 56 
ἁλίζεν, 47 
ἁμαρτάνειν, 54 (bis) 
ἀριθμεῖν, 845 
ἀρκεῖν, 10 
ἀρνεῖσθαι 845 (bis) 
ἁρπάζειν, 50 
ἄρχεσθαι (1), 14, 37 
ἀσπάζεσθαι, 6, 20 
(bis) 
αὐλεῖν, 15 
αὐξάνειν, 35, 40 
ἀφανίζειν, 36 (bis) 
BarrAav, 1, 2, 18, 
35, 38 (bis), 39, 
47 


1 The numbers here refer to the sections 


above, 


βαπτίζειν 1 (bis) 
βασανίζειν, 13 
βαστάζειν, 1, 20 
βίαζεσθαι, 50 
βλέπειν, 8, 14, 26 
(bis) 
βούλεσθαι, 25 
Bree (6) 
γαμεῖν, 52, 56 
γαμίζειν, 56 
γέμειν, 33 (bis) 
yiver Oat, 2,6, 10, 23 
(bis), 25, 29, 30, 
37, 40, 48 (bis) 
γινώσκειν, 11, 25 
(bis), $47.) :-37 
(bis), 56 
γράφειν, 2 (quater), 
14 


γρηγορεῖν, 37 
δαιμονίζεσθαι, 29 
Savifer Oat, 5 
δεικνύειν, 2 
δεῖσθαι, 18 
δεσμεύειν, 33 
δέχεσθαι, 22 (bis), 
24 (quater) 


διδάσκειν (3) 

διδόναι, 2, 5, 27, 28 
(ter), 30; 37, 58 

δικαιοῦν, 15 

διχάζειν, 38 

διχοτομεῖν, 37 

διώκειν, 3 (bis), 6, 
33 


δοκεῖν, 1, 37, 38, 
48 

δουλεύειν, 49 (bis) 

δύνασθαι 1, 347 
(bis), 35, 49 (bis) 

éav, 37 

ἐγγίζειν, 16, 22 

ἐγείρειν, 1, 14 (bis), 
30 


εἶναι, vv. ll. 

εἰπεῖν, 1, 2 (quater), 
3, 8, 13 (quater 
vel ter), 14 (bis), 
17. (pis), 225 oe 
30, 38, 845 (bis), 
34 (bis), 37, 40, 
43, 55, 56 

ἐλέγχειν, 54 

ἐρημοῦν, 29 


of the text as given 


148 THE 


ἔρχεσθαι, 1 (bis), 
12 (bis), 13 (ter), 
14, 15 (bis), 20, 
29, 30, 33, 37, 
(ter), 38 (ter), 
43, 53 (bis), 56 

ἐσθίειν, 15 (bis), 21, 
22, 37 

evayyedifer Oar, 14 

εὐλογεῖν, 43 

εὐνοεῖν, 39 

εὑρίσκειν, 18, 28 
(bis), 29 (bis), 
87, 41, 48, 57 
(bis) 

eye, 1; 0, 255,15; 
17 (bis), 55, 58 
(ter) 

(iv, 2 

ᾧητεῖν, 28 (bis), 29, 

, 48 

ζυμοῦν, 40 

ἥκειν, 33, 37, 42, 43 

θάπτειν, 17 (bis) 

θαυμάζειν, 13 

θεᾶσθαι, 14 

θέλειν (ἐθέλειν), 4, 
5, 7, 80, 88, 48 
(bis) 

θεμελιοῦν, 12 

θεραπεύειν, 13, 29 

θερίζειν, 35 

θησαυρίζειν, 36 (bis) 

θλίβειν, 41 

θρηνεῖν, 15 

ἰᾶσθαι, 13 (bis vel 
semel) 

ἰδεῖν, 1, 14 (bis), 26 
(bis), 30, 43 


ἱστάναι, 2 


SAYINGS 


ἰσχύειν, 47 
καίειν, 31 
καθαρίζειν, 14, 33 
καλύπτειν, 344 
κεῖσθαι, 1 
κερδαίνειν, 54 
κηρύσσειν, 16, 34° 
κινεῖν, 33 
κλείειν͵ 33 
κλέπτειν, 36 (bis) 
κλίνειν, 17 
κολλᾶσθαι, 22 
κονιᾶν, 33 
κοπιᾶν, 35 
κόπτεσθαι, 15 
κοσμεῖν, 29 
κρίνειν, 4, 8 (qua- 
ter), 59 
κρούειν, 28 (bis) 
κρύπτειν, 25, 34 
λαλεῖν, 29 
λαμβάνειν, 4, 28, 
40 (bis), 46 
λάμπειν, 31 
λατρεύειν, 2 
λέγειν, 1 (bis), 2 
(bis), (3), Ὁ;.11. 
12, 13 (quater), 
14 (bis), 15 (ter), 
16; 177 (bis), 18. 
22 (bis), 23, 26, 
29, 30, 33 (bis), 
348, 35, (ter), 37, 
39, 42, 43, 48, 
51, 54 (bis) 
λιθοβολεῖν, 43 
μαρτυρεῖν, 33 
μεθύειν, 37 
μέλλειν, 1 
μένειν, 21 


OF JESUS 


μερίζειν, 29 
peptpvav,35(quater) 
μετρεῖν 8 (bis) 
μισεῖν, 49 
μοιχεύειν, 52 (bis) 
μωραΐίνειν, 47 
νήθειν, 35 
νηστεύειν, 2 
ὁδηγεῖν, 9 
οἶδα, 28, 33, 35, 37, 
39 
οἰκοδομεῖν, 12 (bis), 
33 


ὁμοιοῦν, 12 (bis), 
15, 40 (bis 2) 
ὁμολογεῖν, 344 (bis) 
ὀνειδίζειν, 3 
ὀρχεῖσθαι, 15 
πεινάζειν, 2 
πεινᾶν, 3 
πειράζειν, 2 (bis) 
πέμπειν, 14 
πενθεῖν, 3 
πίνειν, 15 (bis), 21, 
35, 37, 56 
πίπτειν, 9, 12, 34 
πιστεύειν (13), 56 
πλανᾶσθαι, 48 (ter) 


),| πληροῦν, 33 


πνέειν, 12 (ter) 

ποιεῖν, 1 (bis), 6 
(ter), 7 (bis), 11 
(ter), 15. Ὑ{Ὸ 
13 (bis), 87, 52 

πορεύεσθαι, 13 (bis), 
14 (bis), 16, 29, 
48 

προφητεύειν (50) 

πωλεῖν, 845 

ῥαπίζειν͵ 4 


σαλεύειν, 14 
σαροῦν, 29 
σκανδαλίζειν, 14. 
σκορπίζειν, 29 
σπείρειν, 35, 40 
στρέφειν, 4 
σχολάζειν, 29 
ταπεινοῦν, 44 (bis) 
τιθέναι, 31, 37 


ἀμφιεννύναι, 14, 35 
ἀναβλέπειν, 14 
ἀνάγεσθαι, 2 
ἀνακλίνειν, 42 
ἀνατέλλειν, 6 
ἀνιστάναι, 30 
ἀνοίγειν, 28 
ἀντέχομαι, 49 
ἀπαγγέλλειν, 14 
ἀπάγειν, 41 (bis) 
ἀπέρχεσθαι, 17 (bis) 
ἀποδεκατοῦν, 33 
ἀποδιδόναι, 39 
ἀποκαλύπτειν, 
(bis), 345 
ἀποκρίνεσθαι, 2, 18, 
14. 
ἀποκτείνειν, 33, 34 
(bis), 43 
ἀπολλύναι, 34°, 57 
(bis) 
ἀπολύειν, 52 (bis) 
ἀπομάσσεσθαι, 22 
ἀποστέλλειν, 14, 19, 
24, 33, 43 
ἀποστρέφεσθαι, 5 
ἀφιέναι, 2, 4, 8, 17, 
27 (bis), 33 (bis), 


20 


VOCABULARY 


τρέφειν, 35 
τρώγειν, 56 
τύπτειν, 37 

ὑψοῦν, 23, 44 (bis) 
φαγεῖν, 35 (bis) 
φαίνεσθαι, 33, 56 
φέρειν, 11 

φεύγειν, 1 

φθάνειν, 29 


84> (bis), 43, 48, 
54, 56 (bis) 
διαβλέπειν, 8 
διακαθαρίζειν, 1 
διαφέρειν, 34°, 35 
διέρχεσθαι, 29 
διορύσσειν, 36 (bis), 
37 


εἰσέρχεσθαι, 12, 18 
(bis), 20, 22 (bis), 
29, 33 (ter), 41 
(bis) 

εἰσφέρειν, 27 

ἐκβάλλειν, 8 (bis), 
18, 29 (ter), (42?) 

ἐκκόπτειν, 1 

ἐκπειράζειν, 2 

ἐκχύνειν, 33 

ἐξέρχεσθαι, 14 (ter), 
22, 29 (bis), 39, 
42, 56 (ter) 

ἐξιστάνια, 29 

ἐξομολογεῖσθαι͵ 25 

ἐγκρύπτειν, 40 

ἐμβλέπειν, 35 

ἐνδύνειν, 35 

ἐντελεῖν, 2 

ἐπιδιδόναι, 28 (bis) 


149 


φιλεῖν (45) (bis) 
φοβεῖσθαι, 344 (ter) 
φονεύειν, 33 (bis) 
φορεῖν, 14 

χαίρειν, 3, 48 
χορτάζειν, 3 
χρήζειν, 35 
χρονίζειν, 37 
ψεύδεσθαι, 3 


ἐπιζητεῖν, 80, 35 
ἐπιθυμεῖν, 46 
ἐπιστρέφειν, 90, 29 
ἐπισυνάγειν, 43 
ἐπιτιθέναι, 88 
ἐπιτρέπειν, 17 
καθίζεσθαι (καθῆ- 
σθαι), 15, 59 
καθιστάναι, 37 (bis) 
καταβαίνειν,1 2(015), 
23 
κατακαΐειν, 1 
κατακρίνειν, 80 (bis) 
κατανοεῖν, 8 
καταμανθάνειν, 85 
καταπατεῖν, 47 
κατασκευάζειν, 14' 
κατασκηνοῦν, 40 
καταφρονεῖν, 40 
κατοικεῖν, 29 
μεταβαΐνειν, 55 (bis) 
μετανοεῖν, 23, 30 
παραδιδόναι, 25, 39 
παρακαλεῖσθαι, 8, 
19 
παραλαμβάνειν, 4 
(bis), 29, 56 (bis) 


παρατιθέναι, 22 


150 THE SAYINGS OF JESUS 


παρέρχεσθαι, δ1 [προσεύχεσθαι, 6 συλλέγειν, 11 

(bis) προσκόπτειν, 2,12 ᾿συνάγειν, 1, 29, 35, 
παρομοιάζειν, 33 προσκυνεῖν, 2 (bis) 56 
περιβάλλειν͵ 85 (bis) | προσπίπτειν, 12 ὑπάγειν (13) 
περιπατεῖν, 14, 33 ᾿προστιθένα, 35 [ὑπάρχειν (Partic.), 
προσδοκᾶν, 14, 37 (bis) 
προσέρχεσθαι, 13 προσφωνεῖν, 15 ὑποδεικνύναι, 1, 121 

The numerical ratio of simple to compound verbs 
is of interest. They stand in the ratio of 100: 50— 
very nearly the same as that which holds in the 
Gospel of St. John and the Epistle of St. James.?_ In 
the Epistle of St. John the ratio of simple to com- 
pound verbs is actually 100:18; in the first Epistle 
of Peter, on the other hand, as 100:63; in the 
Epistle of St. Jude as 100 : 78, and in the Epistle to 
the Ephesians as 100:79. St. Luke has about 66 per 
cent. more compounds than St. Matthew, in which 
gospel the ratio is almost exactly the same as that in 
St. Mark. ‘The relatively small number of compound 
verbs in Q (especially if one takes the total number of 
occurrences: 47 of simple verbs to 168 of compound) 
may be advanced as evidence of near relationship of 
this source to the Semitic.* The compounds are almost 

1 Of these eighty-two compound verbs, twenty-four are not found 
elsewhere in St. Matthew, namely: ἀμφιεννύναι, ἀνάγεσθαι, ἀντέχεσ- 
θαι, ἀποδεκατοῦν, ἀπομάσσεσθαι, διαβλέπειν, διακαθαρίζειν, διέρχεσθαι, 
διορύσσειν, εἰσέρχεσθαι, ἐκπειράζειν, ἐξιστάναι, ἐγκρύπτειν, ἐπιδιδόναι, 
καταμανθάνειν, κατανοεῖν, κατασκευάζειν, παρομοιάζειν, προσδοκᾶν, προσ- 
κόπτειν, προσπίπτειν, προστιθέναι, προσφωνεῖν, ὑποδεικνύναι. 

2 In St. John there are about 209 simple verbs to 100 compound ; 
in St. James, 126 simple to 64 compound. In St. John, however, 
it must be observed that a particular simple verb occurs much 
more frequently than a particular compound verb. 

3 The rare use of compound verbs in St. John admits of a similar 


explanation ; though here a conscious literary purpose must also be 
taken into account. 


VOCABULARY . 151 


always verbs of the most common description }— 
indeed the majority of them are those in which the 
preposition has kept its elementary local significance, 
or those which are no longer felt to be compounds. 
The only compound verbs that are at all characteristic 
are διαβλέπειν in 8, διακαθαρίζειν Ww Ys διορύσσειν in 
36 and 37 (vide Job xxiv. 16; Exod. xxii. 2; Jer. ii. 
34), ἐπιζητεῖν in 30 and 35, ἐμβλέπειν in 35, προσ- 
πίπτειν in 12. Compounds with ὑπέρ and πρό are 
entirely absent. ‘The simple verbs also are practically 
always verbs in common use; the only exceptions are 
διχαζειν (38; wanting in the LXX), διχοτομεῖν (37; 
only here in the New Testament—cf Exod. xxix. 17), 
κονιάσθαι (33, of Acts xxiii. 3), σαροῦσθαι (29, cf. St. 
Luke xv. 8, a later form of σαίρεσθαι). We can dis- 
cover scarcely any instances of constant use of, or 
of prejudice in favour of, particular verbs. Of the 
eighty-two compounds only twenty-five occur in more 
than one passage τ ἀμφιεννύναι; ἀποκαλύπτειν. ἀπο- 
κρίνεσθαι; ἀ ἀποκτείνειν, ἀπολλύναι; ἀποστέλλειν. ἀφιέναι, 
διαφέρειν; διορύσσειν; εἰσέρχεσθαι; ἐκβάλλειν, ἐξέρχεσθαι, 
ἐπιζητεῖν, ἐπιστρέφειν, καθίζεσθαι; καταβαίνειν, μετα- 
γοεῖν». παραδιδόναι, “παρακαλεῖσθαι; παραλαμβάνειν, 
περιπατεῖν; προσδοκᾶν, προσκόπτειν; συνάγειν, ὑπο- 
δεικνύναι); here the only important trait is the 
repetition of διαφέρειν; διορύσσειν, but especially of 
ἀφιέναι. Of the 166 simple verbs only fifty-one are 
found in more than one passage (viz. ἀγαπάν; αἴρειν; 
αἰτεῖν, ἀκολουθεῖν, ἀκούειν, ἄρχεσθαι; ἀσπάζεσθαι, 
αὐξάνειν; βάλλειν, βασταζειν, βλέπειν, γαμεῖν; γίνεσθαι; 


1 A double compound is only once found (in 43: ἐπισυνάγειν) ; but, 
as will be shown, in a quotation. 


152 THE SAYINGS OF JESUS 


γινώσκειν; γράφειν, δέχεσθαι, διδόναι, διώκειν, δοκεῖν, 
δύνασθαι. ἐγγίζειν; ἐγείρειν: εἰπεῖν, ἔρχεσθαι; ἐσθίειν, 
εὑρίσκειν, ἔχειν; ζητεῖν, ἥκειν, θέλειν, θεραπεύειν, ἰδεῖν, 
καθαρίζειν; κηρύσσειν; κρίνειν, κρύπτειν; λαμβάνειν, 
λέγειν; οἶδα, οἰκοδομεῖν, ὁμοιοῦν, πίνειν, πίπτειν {[πισ- 
τεύειν], ποιεῖν; πορεύεσθαι, σπείρειν; τιθέναι. ὑψ οὖν, 
φαίνεσθαι, χαίρειν) ; none of these (except perhaps 
ἐγείρειν in 1, 14, 30, the redundant ἄρχεσθαι in [1] 
14, 37, ἀκολουθεῖν, ἀσπάζεσθαι; βάλλειν and δοκεῖν) 
is characteristic. That our sixty sections form an 
homogeneous whole does not therefore admit of 
stringent proof based upon an investigation of the 
character of the verbs both simple and compound. 


(2) SupsTaANTIVES AND ADJECTIVES 
What has been said of the verbs also holds good 


for the substantives and adjectives: these also scarcely 
form a basis for the conclusion that the sections are 
homogeneous. Remarkable words and phrases are 
exceedingly rare, and these as a rule occur each only 
once. Yet attention may perhaps be drawn to the 
following: Ilacas τὰς βασιλείας τοῦ κόσμου καὶ τὴν 
δόξαν αὐτῶν (2) and Σολομὼν ἐν πάσῃ τῇ δόξη αὐτοῦ 
(35); τὰς βασιλείας τοῦ κόσμου (2) and τὰ ἔθνη τοῦ 
κόσμου (35); “loaf” and “stone” in 2 and 28; ἀποθήκη 
in 1 and 35; ἀνατολή and δυσμοί in 42 and 56; the 
frequent occurrence of the word βασιλεία; the use 
of γενεά in 15, 30, 33, of δένδρον in 1. 11, and 40, of 
δοῦλος in 10 and 87, of ἡ ἔρημος in 2, 14, and 56, of ὁ 
ἐρχόμενος in 1, 14, and 43, of Ισραήλ in 13 and 59, 
of κλέπτης (together with διορύσσειν) in 36 and 37, of 
ot ὄχλοι in (1) 14 and 29, of περισσόν in 6 and 14, 


VOCABULARY 153 


of τὰ πετεινὰ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ in 17, 35, and 40, οὗ πίστις 
(13, 55: different degrees ot faith), of σοφία in 15, 
30, and (33), of τελώνης in 6 and 15, of ὑποκριτής in 
8 and 37. A noteworthy trait is the great number 
of adjectives used as substantives. This finds an 
explanation in the fact that the original was Semitic. 
Proper names are of very scanty occurrence (Abel, 
Abraham, Jacob, Jonas, Isaac, Israel, Ninevites, Noah, 
Solomon, Zacharias, John [the Baptist], Pharisees, 
Beelzebub, Mammon; Bethsaida, Chorazin, Gomorrha, 
Jerusalem, Jordan, Capernaum, Sidon, Sodom). Not 
one of the disciples of our Lord is mentioned by name, not 
even St. Peter; by accident also the name of μαθηταί 
for them is wanting in the text preserved for us 
(except in one passage 10; in 14 the word does not refer 
to disciples of our Lord)—this, however, is only acci- 
dental: numerous passages refer to them, and in 59 
we are told of twelve thrones for the followers of Jesus. 
The concept “of ἀκολουθοῦντες" (ἀκολουθεῖν) is of great 
import in Q (13, 17, 46, 59). The term ὁ Χριστός 
for our Lord is found only once (14). In regard to 
the title o κύριος as applied to our Lord, it is not 
quite certain whether St. Matt. vii. 21 (St. Luke vi. 
46) stood in Q; but in this context it has no more 
significance than the κύριε in the mouth of the cen- 
turion (in 13); Ὁ itself never calls our Lord «ὁ κύριος:᾽" 
its designation for Him is simply “Jesus” (vide 2 
[13], 17, and 54). In regard to the adjectives, by far 
the most noteworthy feature is the use of ἄξιος (1, 20, 
21, 45, 46), of μακάριος (3, 14, 26, 37), of ὅλος (32, 40), 
of πολύς (3, 18, with μισθός and with θερισμός)» and 
of πονηρός (11, 28, 29, 30, 99). 


154 


THE SAYINGS OF JESUS 


The following is a complete list of the substantives 


and adjectives :— 


"ABeX, 33) 

᾿Αβραάμ, 1 (bis), 42 

ἀγαθά, τά, 28 (bis) 

ἀγαθοΐ, οἵ, 

ἀγαπῶντες, οἱ, 6 

ἄγγελοι, 2, 14, 845 
(bis) 

ἀγορά, 15 

ἀγρός, 35, 40, 56 

ἀδελφός, 6, 8 (ter), 
54 (ter) 

ἄδης, 23 

ἄδικοι, ot (6) 

ἀετός, 56 

αἷμα, 33 (quater) 

ἀκαθαρσία, 33 

ἀκάνθαι, 11 

ἀκρασία, 33 

ἅλας, 47 (bis) 

ἄλευρον, 40 

ἅλων. 1 

ἀλώπηξ, 17 

ἁμαρτωλός, 6, 15 

ἄμμος, 12 

ἀνάγκη, 58 

ἀνάπαυσις, 29 

ἀνατολή, 42, 56 

ἄνεμος, 12 (bis), 14 

ἄνηθον, 33 

ἀνήρ, 12 (bis), 30 

ἄνθρωπος, 2, 7, 13, 
14, 15 (bis), 17, 
28, 29 (bis), 30, 
33 (ter), 34° (ter), 
38 (bis), (40), 47, 
48, 53 


ἀντίδικος, 39 (bis) 
ἀξίνη. 1 
ἀποθήκη, 1, 35 
ἀπώλεια, 41 
ἁρπαγή, 33 
ἄρτος, 2 (bis), 27, 
28 
ἀσσάριον, 8.45 
ἀστραπή, 56 
ἄχυρον, 1 
βαλλάντιον, 20 
βάπτισμα, 1 
βαπτιστής (14) 
βαρύτερα, τά, 33 
βασιλεία, 2, 12, 14, 
16, 29 (bis), 33, 
35, 40 (bis ὃ), 42 
(bis), 50 
βασιλεύς, 14 (26) 
βασίλισσα, 30 
Βεελξεβούλ, 29 
Βηθσαιδάν, 23 
βιαστής, 50 
βόθυνον, 9 
βροχή, 12 (bis) 
Bpvypos, 42 
βρῶσις, 36 (bis) 
yéevva, 34° 
yeved, 15, 30 (qua- 
ter), 33 
γέννημα, 1 
γεννητός, 6, 14 
γῆ, 22, 25, 80, 33, 


δ1Ὶ 
Γομόρρα, 22 


γραμματεύς, 88 

γυνή, 14, 40, 52 

δαιμόνιον, 15, 29 
(bis) 

δάκτυλος, 33 

δένδρον, 1 (bis), 11 
(quinquies), 40 

δεσμωτήριον, 14 

διάβολος, 2 (bis) 

διδάσκαλος, 10 (bis) 

δίκαιοι, ot (6) 

διώκοντες, οἱ, 6 

δοκός, 8 (ter) 

δόμα (28) 

δόξα, 2, 35 

δοῦλος, 10 (bis), 13, 
37 (quater) 

δύναμις, 23 

δυσμός, 42, 56 

δώδεκα, οἱ (indi- 
rectly), 59 

δῶμα, 845 

ἐθνικοί, οἱ, 6 

ἔθνος, 85 

εἰρήνη, 20 (bis), 38 
(bis) 

ἑκατόνταρχος, 13 
(ter vel bis) 

ἔλεος, 33 

ἔνδυμα, 35 (bis) 

ἐξουσία, 13 

ἔξωθεν, τό, 33 

ἐργάτης, 18 (bis), 21 


34°, 36, 38 (47), ἔργον, 14. 


ἔρημος, ἡ, 2, 14, 
56 


VOCABULARY 155 


ail o, 1, 14, ἰῶτα, 51 λόγος, 12 (bis), 13, 
καιρός, 25, 37 345 

οὐ τά, 29 κάλαμος, 14 λύκος, 19 
εὐδοκία, 25 καρδία, 36, 37 λυχνία, 31 
ὉΑΤΗ οἱ, 6 (38) καρπός, 1 (bis), 11 λύχνος, 31, 32 
ἐχίδνη, 1 (quinquies) μαθητής, 10 (bis), 
Zaxapias, 33 κάρφος, 8 (ter) 14 (18) 
ζύμη, 40 κατακλυσμός, 56 μαλακά, τά, 14 (bis) 
ζωή, 41 (bis) μαμωνᾶς, 40 
ἡδύοσμον, 33 κατασκήνωσις, 17 μάχαιρα, 38 
ἡλικία, 35 Καφαρναούμ, 13, 28 | μέρος, 37 
ἥλιος, Θ.. κεραία, 51 μέσον (19) 
ἡμέρα, 2, 22, 23, 33,| κεφαλή, 17, 845 μετάνοια, 1 (bis) 

87 (50), 56 (ter) | κήρυγμα, 30 μέτρον, 8, 33 
θέλημα, 12 κιβωτός, 56 μήτηρ, 38 (45) 
θεός, 1, 2 (bis) 12,| κλάδος, 40 μικρότερος, ὃ, 14 

14, 16, 29 (bis), | κλαυθμός, 42 μισθός, 8,6 

33 (bis), 845 ([εγ), κλέπτης, 36 (bis), | μόδιος, 31 

35 (bis),40(bis?),| 37 μῦλον, 56 

42, 49, 50 κλίβανος, 35 ναός, 33 
θερισμός, 18 (ter) κοινωνοί, οἱ, 33 νεκρός, 6, 14, 17 
θησαυρός, 36 (ter) | κόκκος, 40, 55 (bis) 
θρίξ, 34° κοδράντης, 39 νήπιος, 6, 25 
θρόνος, 59 κονιορτός, 22 Νινευείτης, 30 (bis) 
θυγάτηρ, 38 (45) κόραξ, 35 (?) νόμος, 33, 50, 51 
θυσιαστήριον, 33 κόσμος, 2, 35 νοσσία, τά, 43 
Ἰακώβ, 42 κρῖμα, 8 νότος, 80 
ἱερόν, τό, 2 κρίνον, 88 νύμφη, 38 
ἹΙερουυσαλήμ, 2, 48 κρίσις, 22, 23, 80 Νῶε, 56 (bis) 

bis) (bis), 33 ὁδός, 14, 20, 39, 41 
Ἰησοῦς, 2 (ter) (13), κριτής, 29, 39 (bis) | (bis) 

7, 54 κύμινον, 33 ddovs, 42 
ἱμάτιον, 4 κύριος, 2 (bis), 10 ,οἰκετεία, 37 
Ἰορδάνης, 1 (bis), 12 (bis), 13 οἰκία, 12 (quater), 
Ἰσαάκ, 42 (bis), 18, 25, 37| 13, 20 (bis), 21, 
Ἰσραήλ, 13, 59 (quater), 43, 49 31, 37 
ἰχθύς, 28 κωφός, 6, 14, 29 οἰκιακός (38) 
Ἰωνᾶς, 30 (quater) (bis) οἰκοδεσπότης, 87 
᾿Ιωάννης, 1, 14 (ᾳυ8- λεπρός, 6, 14 οἶκος, 14, 29, 43 


ter), 15, 50 λίθος, 1, 2 (bis), 28 οἰνοπότης, 1ὅ 


156 THE 
ὀλιγόπιστος, ὁ, 35 
ὄνομα, 48 

ὀργή, 1 

ὄρνις, 48 


ὄρος, 2, 48, 55 
ὀστέον, 33 
οὐρανοί, 3, 36 
οὐρανός, 17, 23, 25, 
28 (35), 40, 51 
οὖς, 26, 845 
ὀφειλέτης, 27 
ὀφείλημα, 27 
ὀφθαλμός, 8 (sex), 
26, 32 (ter) 
ὄφις, 28 
ὄχλοι, 1 (3), 14, 29 
παιδίον, 15 
παῖς, 13 (ter vel bis) 
παραλυτικός, ὃ, 13 
παρουσία, 56 (ter) 
παροψίς, 33 
πατήρ,1, 6 (bis), 12, 
17, 25 (quater), 
27, 28, 33 (bis), 
35, 38 (45) 
πεινῶντες, ol, 8 
πειράζων, ὃ, 3 
πειρασμός, 27 
πενθερά, 88 
πενθοῦντες, ot, 8 
πέρατα, τά, 80 
περισσόν, τό, 6, 14 
περίχωρος, 7, 1 
πετεινά, τά, 17 (35), 


πέτρα, 12 (bis) 
πήρα, 20 
πῆ τ, BS .- 
πίστις, 18, 55 
πλατεία, 22 


SAYINGS OF JESUS 


|rvedpa (1), 2, 29| σοφία, 15, 30 


[of evil spirits:| Σοφία, 33 
29 bis]; τὸ ἅγιον, σοφός, ὁ, 25, 33 


34> 
πόλις, 22 (quater) 
movnpot, ot, 6 
πονηρόν, τό, 8 
ποταμός, 12 (bis) 
ποτήριον, 33 
ποῦς, 2, 22 
πρόβατον, 19, 48 
πρόσωπον, 14 
προφήτης, 8, 14 
(bis), 26, 33 (ter), 
43, 50 
πρῶτα, τά, 29 
πτερύγιον, 2 
πτέρυξ, 43 
πτύον, 1 
πτῶμα, 56 
πτῶσις, 12 
πτωχός, ὁ, 8, 14 
πύλη, 41 (bis vel 


σημεῖον, 80 (αυϊπᾳ.) 


σῆς, 86 (bis) 

σιαγών, 4. 

Σιδών, 23 (bis) 

σίναπι, 40, 55 

σῖτος, 1 

σκάνδαλον, 53 (bis) 

σκοτία, 34° 

σκότος, 32 (bis) 

Σόδομα, 22 

Σολομῶν, 
85 


σποδός, 28 

σταυρός, 40 

σταφυλή, 11 

στέγη, 18 

στρατιώτης, 18 

στρουθίον, 845 (bis) 

σῦκον, 11 

σύνδουλος, 37 

συνετός, ὁ, 25 

σῶμα, 32 (ter), 845 
(bis), 35 (bis) 

ταμεῖον, 56 

τάφος, 33 (ter) 

τέκνον, 1, 15, 28, 
43 

τελώνης, 6, 15 

τόπος, 29 

τρίβολος, 11 

τρόπος, 43 

τροφή, 21, 35, 37 

Τύρος, 23 (bis) 

τυφλός, ὁ, 9 (bis), 
14 

ὕδωρ, 1 

υἱοὶ τ. 
42 

vids, 6, 29, 33 (45) 

vids τ. ἀνθρώπου, 15, 
17, 80 (348), 34° 
(ST), 56 (ter) == 

vids τ. θεοῦ, 2 (bis), 
25 

ὑπάρχοντα, τά, 87 

ὑπηρέτης, 39 

ὑπόδημα, 1, 20 


βασιλείας, 


80 (bis), | ὑποκριτής, 8, 37 


φάγος, 15 


Φαρισαῖοι, 88 (qua- 
ter 

φίλος, ὁ, 15 

φορτίον, 33 

φυλακή, 37, 39 

φυλή, 59 


ἀγαθός, 11 (bis) 
ἅγιος (1), 34> 
ἄδηλος, 33 
ἀκάθαρτος, 29 
ἀνεκτός, 22, 23 
ἄνυδρος, 29 
ἄξιος, 1, 20 (bis), 21 
(45) (bis), 46 
ἁπλοῦς, 32 
ἀρκετός, 10 
ἄσβεστος, 1 
βαρύς, 33 (bis) 
δεινῶς, 13 
δεξιός, 4 
ἐπιούσιος, 27 
ἔρημος, 43 
ἔσχατος, 39 


VOCABULARY 


φωλεός, 17 
φῶς, 32, 34° 
χείρ, 1, 2 
χιτών, 4 
Xopafeiv, 23 
χόρτος, 35 


ἕτοιμος, 37 
εὐρύχωρος, 41 
ἱκανός, 1, 13 
ἰσχυρός, 1 
κακός (37) 
καλός, 1, 11 (bis) 
κρυπτός, 845 
μακάριος, 3(quater), 
3 3 
μέγας, 12, 14 (bis) 
μοιχαλίς, 80 
νεκρός, 33 
οἰκτίρμων, 6 (bis) 
ὀλίγος, 18, 41 
ὅλος, 32 (bis), 40 


157 


Χριστός, 14 

χωλός, ὁ, 14 

ψυχή, 845 (bis), 35 
(bis), 57 (bis) 

ὦμος, 33 

ὥρα (13) (37), 37 


πιστός, 37 

πλατύς, 41 

πολύς [1], 3, 18, 26, 
30 (bis), 344, 35 
(bis), 41 

πονηρός, 11 (bis), 
28, 29, 30, 32 

campos, 11 (bis) 

σκοτεινός, 32 

στενός, 41 (bis) 

ταχύ, 39 

ὑψηλός, 2 

φρόνιμος, 37 

φωτεινός, 32 

χείρων, 29 


ὅμοιος, 12 (bis), 40 | ὡραῖος, 33 


(ter ?) 


The simplicity and homogeneity of the vocabulary does 
seem to me to incline the balance in favour of the unity 


of Q. 


(3) ῬΒΕΡΟΒΙΤΙΟΝΒ 


Among the prepositions παρά; σύν; and ἐνώπιον 
are wanting (in place of the latter ἔμπροσθεν is 
used seven times); the prepositions of most fre- 
quent occurrence are ἐν (about fifty-nine times, and 
with the most varied significance), then ἐπί (about 
twenty-eight times) and eis (about twenty-eight 
times), also ἀπό (sixteen times), ἐκ (thirteen times). 


158 THE SAYINGS OF JESUS 


We observe at once the Semitic original. Of rarer 
occurrence are διά, ἕως, μετά (only in the sense of 
“with ”), and ὑπό (eight, nine, nine, and ten times 
respectively). Kara is found only seven times 
(always with the genitive in the sense of “against”; 
the occurrence with the accusative in section 20 is 
uncertain), πρός and ὑπέρ five times, περί only four 
times, πρό three times, ἄχρι, μεταξύ, avev, ὀπίσω each 
only once. 

The absence of παρά and σύν is important; for 
παρά is found elsewhere in St. Matthew eighteen to 
twenty times (and indeed with all its three cases), 
in St. Luke twenty-nine to thirty times; σύν is 
found elsewhere in St. Matthew two to three times, 
and in St. Luke twenty-four to twenty-six times. 
In the absence of the preposition παρά we may 
clearly recognise a distinct characteristic of Q.? — 
There are a few cases of construction with the 
article and a preposition in ἃ substantival or 
adjectival sense.’ 


1 ἕως also occurs as a conjunction six times (vide 39: ἕως ὅτου, 
39, 43, 51: ἕως ἄν, 40: ἕως οὗ, 56: ἕως ἦλθεν). ᾿Από is also found 
with particles—d7é τότε, 50 [τότε also again in 8 and 29], dm’ ἄρτι, 43. 

2 Παρά is found with all three cases in St. Mark; in St. John it 
frequently occurs with the genitive and dative, but is wanting with 
the accusative. We should have an instance of occurrence in Q if 
it were permissible to regard the text of 21 as simply that of Q; 
but we have not authority for this, seeing that there is no parallel 
in St. Matthew. 

3 Of. 3: of πρὸ ὑμῶν, 28: 6 ἐξ οὐρανοῦ, 31: ol ἐν τῇ οἰκίᾳ, 32: τὸ ἐν 
σοί (21: τὰ wap’ αὐτῶν»). 


GRAMMAR AND STYLE 159 


B.—GRAMMAR AND STYLE 


Sentences in Q are most frequently connected 
by means of καί (as in Semitic languages) ;1 δέ, as 
compared with καί, falls very much into the back- 
ground—it is indeed found scarcely thirty times 
(μέν. . . δέ only thrice in 1, 18, and 33). Neither 
can we speak of yap as of frequent occurrence (about 
twenty times, καὶ yap in 13)? ’Kay is twice as 
frequent as e. The latter is found only about 
ten times® (2 [bis]: εἰ υἱὸς εἶ τοῦ θεοῦ, εἰπὲ ἵνα vel 
βάλε. 28: εἰ οἴδατε ἀγαθὰ. διδόναι τοῖς τέκνοις, 
πόσῳ μάλλον ὁ πατὴρ δώσει. 29 [bis]: εἰ ἐν Βεελ- 
ζεβοὺλ ἐκβάλλω, οἱ υἱοὶ ἐν τίνι ἐκβάλλουσιν ; εἰ ἐν 
πνεύματι θεοῦ ἐκβάλλω, ἄρα ἔφθασεν. 62: εἰ τὸ 
φῶς σκότος ἐστίν, τὸ σκότος πόσον; 35: εἰ ἐν ἀγρῷ 
τὸν χόρτον ὁ θεὸς ἀμφιέννυσιν, οὐ ἀρ μᾶλλον 
ὑμᾶς; 23: εἰ ἐν Τύρῳ ἐγένοντο αἱ Mitac πάλαι 
ἂν μετενόησαν. 98. εἰ ἤμεθα ἐν ταῖς ἡμέραις τῶν 

’ τ ΠῚ yA θΘ VF 2 9 "δ ε e ὃ , 
πατέρων, οὐκ ἂν ἤμεθα. 37: εἰ poe ὁ οἰκοδεσπότης 
ποίᾳ φυλακῃ ὁ κλέπτης ἔρχεται, ἐγρηγόρησεν ἂν καὶ 
οὐκ ἂν εἴασεν). Besides the four instances just quoted, 
ἄν occurs again in sections 14, 34°, 52, 57 (ὃς ay), 
25 (ᾧ ay), 39, 43, 51 (ἕως ἄν), δ6 (ὅπου ay).4 The 

1 Cf. e.g. sections 12 and 13. Also καί with the apodosis is not 
rare—vide e.g. sections 13, 35. 

2 Οὖν is found about a dozen times—cf. 1 (with imperative), 1, 6 
(with the imperative future), 12, 18, 28, 32 [bcs], 848 [bzs, but one 
of these is doubtful], 35 (with imperative), 56. Διὰ τοῦτο occurs in 
sections 29, 33, 35 (87). 

® Also é& μή (=except) three times (vide 25, 30, 47); and πλήν 
(23, 53). 

* Section 22 is doubtful: εἰς ἣν ἄν. Ὅταν is found only twice 
(3 and 29), ὅτε never (for in 43 it is very doubtful). 


100 THE SAYINGS OF JESUS 


particle re 1s never found, nor in consequence Te... 
καί, while they occur both in St. Matthew and St. 
Luke. Οὐδέ occurs about ten times, οὔτε . . . οὔτε 
once (36), μηδέ once (35), μήτε . . . μήτε once (15), 
once also the interrogative μήτι (11), ov μή thrice 
(39, 43, 51), 7 . . . ἤ once (49). 

Temporal clauses with ws are entirely absent ;* in 
their place we have simple participial clauses; the 
genitive absolute is found only once (14), not in a 
saying of our Lord but in a descriptive passage 
(τούτων πορευομένων). Participial constructions, 
both with a temporal significance and as a substitute 
for relative clauses, are extraordinarily frequent— 
moreover, several participles (co-ordinated or sub- 
ordinated) are found in conjunction. However, the 
construction of εἷναι with the participle, so common 
with St. Luke, is very rare; I have only found it 
in section 56. . 

So far as I see, the accusative with infinitive occurs 
only once (53). 

Final clauses are often expressed by the simple 
infinitive (vide, 2, 14 [ter], 37 [here with the genitive 
of the article], 38 [ter], 47); ἵνα and ὅπως are not 
frequent. The former is only found in the following 
combinations: εἰπὲ ἵνα ot λίθοι ἄρτοι γένωνται (2), 


1 Qs throughout=“‘ just as,” vide 6, 10 (13), 27 (ws Kal), 33, 35, 56; 
ef. ὥσπερ in 30 and 56 [bis]; καθώς is wanting. “Ov τρόπον is found 
once (43). Οὕτως is used in the apodosis, vide 7 (πάντα ὅσα ἐὰν 
θέλητε. . . οὕτως ποίεϊῖτε), 30, 56 [ter] in the connection ὥσπερ 
(ws) . . . οὕτως, also in the principal sentence in 3, 11, 37.—Oorts 
is also found a few times (4, 12 [15], 33, 34 [bzs], 44 [bzs]).—"“O7rov 
also occurs a few times (also in the sense of ‘‘ whither”’), vide 17, 
36, 56 (followed by ἐκεῖ in 36 and 56; ἐκεῖ also occurs in 55). 


GRAMMAR AND STYLE 161 


ὅσα ἐὰν θέλητε ἵνα ποιῶσιν ὑμῖν οἱ ἄνθρωποι (7); 
μὴ κρίνετε ἵνα μὴ κριθῆτε (8), ἀρκετὸν τῷ μαθητῇ 
e , e e , 3 = Ae A ef 
ἵνα γένηται ὡς ὃ διδάσκαλος (10), οὐκ εἰμι ἱκανὸς ἵνα 
μου ὑπὸ τὴν στέγην εἰσέλθης (18; but in section 1 
ἱκανός is combined with the infinitive). The third 
passage alone answers to the classical use, “Ὅπως 
occurs only three times (6: ὅπως γένησθε υἱοὶ 

a ’ , ~ , “ἶ e Li 
τῶν πατρός, 18: δεήθητε τοῦ κυρίου ὅπως ἐκβάλῃ 
ἐργάτας; 33: ὅπως ἔλθῃ ἐφ᾽ ὑμᾶς πᾶν αἷμα). My, 
in the sense of “ne,” is found only in a quotation 
from the LXX (9) and in section 39 (and, moreover, 
in both cases in the combination μή ποτε).ἦ 

Clauses introduced by ὅτι (in the sense of “that,” 
“for,” and “ because”) are frequent; they are found 
about thirty-three times, and present no remarkable 
feature. ὥστε, in the sense of “itague,” is found 
once (33); on the other hand, ὥστε consecutive is 
probably altogether wanting, for its occurrence in 
section 29 is doubtful. The various constructions with 
γίνομαι, which are so usual in St. Luke and are also 
found in St. Matthew, are likewise entirely absent. 
This is of importance. A redundant γίνεσθαι occurs 
only once (48: ἐὰν γένηται εὑρεῖν). 

One characteristic of these sections is the copious 
use that is made of interrogative sentences” (with or 
without interrogative particles)*; cf 1, 6, 8, 11 (12), 

1 Otherwise the use of particles presents no point of special 
interest. We find ἀλλά (12, 13, 14 [bis], 31, 38, 54; here the use 
in 14 is alone noteworthy), ἀμήν (14, 26, 33, 37, 39, 48), dpa (29, 37), 
ἥδη (1), vat (14, 25), νῦν (33), &. 

2 The frequent use of the future with a significance of continuity 
is also to be noticed. 

3 Vide πῶς, 8, 35; πόσῳ μᾶλλον, 28; οὐ πολλῷ μᾶλλον, 35 [μᾶλλον 
also again in 845, 35, 48]; ποσάκις, 43, 54; ἤ, 28, 35, &. 

Ι, 


162 THE SAYINGS OF JESUS 


14, 15 (17), 23, 28, 29, 32, 34°, 35, 37, 38, 40 (43), 
47, 48, 54. These interrogative sentences give the 
discourses a certain individuality, to which the not 
unfrequent employment of parataxis and of parallelis- 
mus membrorum lends a further distinctive trait. Nota 
few of the sayings are conceived in this simple artistic 
form. 'Taken together, the stylistic expedients which 
are employed impress upon the sayings a stamp of 
homogeneity. Use is not often made of the historic 
present (vide 2, 13, 17, 18, 40, 55). ‘The imperfect 
is practically never found (yet see 29, 30); the opta- 
tive is absolutely wanting. The frequent use of the 
redundant personal pronoun and of the superfluous 
αὐτός in its oblique cases (more than 100 times) is 
characteristic. Both traits are Semitic. Lastly, we 
might adduce a by no means small number of un- 
classical constructions occurring in the majority of 
the sections, some of which may likewise be due to 
the influence of Semitic idiom, such as those we have 
already noticed above in the case of ἵνα, but to 
mention them in detail would lead us too far (vide 
εἰπὲ λόγῳ and similar phrases). 

All these characteristics taken together, and espe- 
cially the negative characteristics, give to the sections, 
or at least to the great majority of them, a certain 
individuality, and distinguish them from the style 
of St. Mark, of St. Matthew, and of St. Luke. We 
cannot give a convincing proof of their unity from 
the results of investigation into their vocabulary and 
style; and yet—especially if it is considered how diffe- 
rent and various is the content of these sections— 
it must be acknowledged that there is in them a 


FORMAL CHARACTERISTICS 163 


certain unity of grammatical and stylistic character 
and colouring. 


Il].—Tue Format CHARACTERISTICS OF THE 
SuBJECT-MATTER 


The sixty sections (34 is a double section) which 
we have obtained as the result of our analysis con- 
sist of seven narratives, eleven (twelve) parables (and 
similes), thirteen groups of sayings, and twenty-nine 
single sayings of smaller or greater length. 

The seven narratives comprise the Temptation 
story (2), the narrative concerning the centurion at 
Capernaum (13), the question sent by St. John from 
his prison and the answer of our Lord (14), the story 
of one who declared himself ready to follow Jesus, 
and of one who desired first to bury his father (17), 
the cure of a demoniac and the Beelzebub controversy 
(29), the demand for a sign, together with our Lord’s 
answer (30), and the question how often one ought 
to forgive, together with our Lord’s command (54). 
There are thus only two stories of miracles (and these 
miracles of healing) in Q—one a very notable miracle, 
a cure wrought at a distance. The introduction to 
some of these stories may have been longer in Q, but 
we have no means of settling this point. Nor can 
we at once discover any motive for the choice of just 
these seven stories; they have nothing in common 
with one another. It is important that (in 23) the 
towns Chorazin, Bethsaida, and especially Capernaum, 
appear as the chief scenes of our Lord’s ministry 
(concerning Jerusalem in 43 vide mfra). An equally 


164 THE SAYINGS OF JESUS 


important point is the strong emphasis laid upon the 
significance of St. John the Baptist. ‘The discourse 
concerning him, which was suggested by his doubting 
question and which is continued in 15, is preceded by 
an account of his preaching of a baptism of repent- 
ance (1), and is followed by the testimony (50) that 
with him closes the epoch of the Law and the 
Prophets. No mention is made of the disciples of 
our Lord in these stories. 

Q includes the following parables and similitudes : 
the Blind leaders of the blind (9), the Good and 
corrupt tree (11), the House on the rock and on 
the sand (12), the Querulous children at play (15), 
the Sheep and the wolves (19), the Light under the 
bushel (31), the Thief by night and the Faithful and 
unfaithful steward (37), Concerning the correct 
behaviour to the adversary (39), the Leaven and the 
Mustard seed (40), the Strait gate and the narrow 
way (41), the Lost sheep (48). Eight of these — 
parables have an individual address without any 
closer definition—only two refer to the Kingdom of 
God, one to the present generation (15), and one to 
the disciples (19). This preponderance of the indi- 
vidual address is noteworthy, and it is also noteworthy 
that the two parables concerning the Kingdom of 
God are not eschatological, and are closely connected 
together (vide infra). 'The parables in sections 12, 
37, 39 (41) close with an outlook towards the 
end: Without anticipating a closer critical exami- 
nation, a cursory glance suffices to inform us that 
the parables bear the impress of genuineness in a 
high degree. 


FORMAL CHARACTERISTICS 165 


The thirteen collections of sayings (discourses) ὦ 
may be grouped in regard to subject-matter as fol- 
lows: The discourse of the Baptist, together with 
the reference to the Coming One (1); the Beati- 
tudes (3); Love for enemies (6); against Judging, 
mote and beam (8); the Lord’s Prayer and the 
power of Prayer (27, 28); Fear not, be not anxious, 
lay not up treasure (34°, 35, 36); The great thanks- 
giving to the Father (25); The great denunciation 
of the scribes and Pharisees (33); Not peace but a 
sword (38); False Messiahs, the Parousia of the 
Son of Man (56).—In judging of Q it is specially 
important to note that this source also contains a 
sermon of the Baptist, and further, that formal 
teaching concerning the better righteousness, and 
that exact directions concerning prayer, fasting, and 
almsgiving, are wanting, although an ethical code is 
imparted in sections 3, 6, 8, 27, 28, 34°, 35, 86. In 
the discourses concerning our Lord’s relationship to the 
Father, concerning His attitude towards the scribes and 
Pharisees and towards the world, and in the discourse 
concerning the Parousia, the most important relation- 
ships ad extra are dealt with, except the relationship 
to the Baptist, which has been explained in the narra- 
tive section 14 (and also beforehand in section 1). 

The twenty-nine shorter or longer sayings are less 
varied in content, as appears at the first glance; 
many of them may be regarded with more or less 
probability as parts of discourses in Q, the restora- 
tion of which must however remain problematical ; in 


1 Besides these, it is very probable that sections 16 and 18-24 
belong to one discourse. 


166 THE SAYINGS OF JESUS 


the case of others, it is possible at once to recognise 
that they are either related to one another or depend 
upon the larger groups of sayings. Nine of the 
sayings in subject-matter, and perhaps also in form, 
belong to the ethical code—namely, sections 4 (‘The 
blow upon the cheek, non-resistance when the coat 
is taken away), 5 (Give to him that asketh), 7 (The 
Golden Rule), 32 (The light of the body is the eye), 
44 (He that exalteth himself), 49 (No man can serve 
two masters), 57 (He that findeth his life), 58 (Who- 
soever hath to him shall be given), 52 (Against 
divorce).—Fifteen sayings belong together as special 
directions and promises to the disciples—namely, 10 
(The disciple is not above his master), 16 (Proclaim 
that the Kingdom of God is at hand), 18 (The 
harvest is great, the labourers few), 19 (I send you 
forth as sheep), 20, 21 (Conduct of the mission from 
house to house), 22, 23 (The mission in the cities, 
sayings concerning the Galilean cities), 24 (He that 
receiveth you receiveth me), 26 (Blessed are your eyes 
and your ears), 55 (The faith which removes moun- 
tains), 45 (He that loveth father or mother), 46 (The 
bearing of the Cross), 47 (Ye are the salt of the 
earth), 59 (Ye will sit upon twelve thrones). Of the 
still remaining sayings, section 50 (The Law and the 
Prophets until John) connects with the narrative of 
section 14; the saying concerning Jerusalem (43), as 
well as the saying that the children of the kingdom 
would be cast out while the Gentiles would enter in 
(42), in their purport belong together, and can be 
connected with the Great Denunciation (33). Quite 
by themselves stand the sayings concerning the Son 


ν᾽ 


FORMAL CHARACTERISTICS 167 


of Man and the Holy Spirit (34°), concerning offences 
(53) and the permanence of the Law (51). 

The first impression that one receives when one 
surveys the content of Q is twofold. For the most 
part, the subject-matter seems to fall asunder into 
disconnected parts, and this impression cannot be 
quite overcome; but as soon as one calls to mind the 
content of the three gospels and compares Q with it, 
then Q appears to be undoubtedly more homogeneous than 
any of the three. What varied material stands in 
peaceful juxtaposition in St. Matthew and St. Luke, 
and even in St. Mark! Even if one neglects the 
stories of the Infancy, what a multitude of varied 
interests, indeed of discrepancies, cross one another in 
those gospels! Who would ever have believed that 
all that St. Matthew or St. Luke or St. Mark nar- 
rate stood in one book, if in each case the book 
itself had not been handed down to us as a single 
complete whole? Compared with these gospels, the 
content which we have assigned to Q is simply 
homogeneous. Here a great number of points of view 
and tendencies which prevail in those gospels are 
absolutely wanting. 

It is characteristic of St. Mark that he emphasises 
the supernatural in our Lord, the Son of God; of 
St. Matthew, that he treats a great part of the 
gospel material from the point of view of the primi- 
tive community, giving to his whole narrative a 
Jewish and yet anti-Judaistic tone in the interests of 
apologetics; and of St. Luke, that with the large- 
heartedness of a Greek he thrusts those traits, which 
display Jesus as the Great Healer, into the fore- 


168 THE SAYINGS OF JESUS 


ground. But in Q all these tendencies are absent. 
Here we receive rather the impression that the 
author is simply concerned with the commandments 
of our Lord, and aims at giving a description of His 
message, in which description he appears to be influ- 
enced by no special and particular bias. Perhaps we 
may not be mistaken in supposing that his selection 
was also determined by his desire to illustrate our 
Lord’s message and His witness to Himself, in their 
main and characteristic features, by specially striking 
examples. ‘The Messiahship (Divine Sonship) having 
been established in the introduction, is in the body 
of the work presupposed as a fact that admits of no 
further controversy. 

The geographical horizon of Q is bounded by 
Galilee, and indeed much more strictly so than that 
of the synoptists. It is indeed a question whether Q 
ever looks beyond Galilee. Reference is made to 
section 43, but I regard it as being very improbable 
(with Schmiedel, « Das viertes Evang. gegeniiber den 
drei ersten” [1906], s. 45 ff.) that this utterance 
concerning Jerusalem stood in Q as a saying of our 
Lord. It has been shown above that in section 33 the 
words (St. Matt. xxiii. 34-36 = St. Luke xi. 49-51) 
form a quotation from an apocryphal Jewish writing, 
wherein they were spoken by the Wisdom of God ; for so 
St. Luke (therefore Q) describes the author; nor could 
Jesus have said that He was sending forth prophets 
and wise men and scribes. Moreover, in St. Matthew 
this passage is followed immediately, and without a 
fresh introduction, by the words concerning Jerusalem 
(St. Matt. xxiii. 37-38; St. Luke does not give them 


FORMAL CHARACTERISTICS 169 


until xiii. 34). It is therefore in itself very probable 
that these words also belong to the quotation, and 
that it is accordingly Wisdom which says: ποσάκις 
ἠθέλησα ἐπισυναγαγεῖν τὰ τέκνα cov. It is Wisdom 
herself who, by sending forth prophets, wise men, 
and scribes who had been slain by Jerusalem, had in 
vain essayed this gathering together of the children 
of Jerusalem (while if ascribed to our Lord this 
ποσάκις, together with the lament over the murdered 
prophets, wise men, and scribes whom He is supposed 
to have sent, hangs in the air—is indeed impossible).* 
Thus, according to the intention of Q, our Lord’s own 
words first begin with λέγω [yap] ὑμῖν, οὐ μὴ με 
ἴδητε TA. (St. Matt. xxiii. 39; St. Luke xiii. 35). 
Hence from section 43 we can draw no conclusion 


1 The style also is somewhat different from that of the sayings of 
our Lord in Q. Ὃν τρόπον does not occur elsewhere in Q (ὡς is the 
only word used); verbs compounded with two prepositions are 
wanting elsewhere. Yet I do not wish to lay much stress upon 
these points. 

2 The history of this passage is accordingly as follows: In Q, 
St. Matt. xxiii, 34-38 was given as a quotation used by our Lord 
to give force to what He was saying, to which verse 39 was 
appended as a real utterance of our Lord Himself. This caused 
some uncertainty in regard to the limits of the quotation. The 
result was that St. Matthew did not treat it as a quotation at all, but 
transformed the whole passage into an original discourse of our Lord 
(and yet with the help of St. Luke we can still detect in διὰ τοῦτο 
a trace of what has been obliterated), while St. Luke has broken off 
the quotation directly before the appeal to Jerusalem, and omitting 
the latter here, has given it in a different place as a saying of 
our Lord Himself. If this explanation is correct, then it further 
follows that St. Luke has torn asunder verses which stood together 
in Q. This is important; for we see that it is not always the case 
that St. Matthew has arbitrarily combined passages from Q which 
did not stand together in that source, but that on the contrary 
St. Luke also has separated passages which were in juxtaposition. 


170 THE SAYINGS OF JESUS 


concerning any close connection of our Lord’s mission 
with Jerusalem—nevertheless there is a strong balance 
of probability that sections 33 and 43 were spoken in 
Jerusalem, where it is more natural that they should 
have been delivered than in Galilee.’ 

Together with Jerusalem—which is thus never men- 
tioned in Q except in the Woe against the Pharisees— 
the Passion and all references to the Passion are absent 
from Q. ‘The single isolated saying concerning the 
taking up of one’s own cross (46) would at the best, if 
it really stood in Q, only afford an indirect reference to 
the Passion, and the sign of the prophet Jonah (30), 
according to the account in Q, had absolutely nothing 
to do with the Passion. So far therefore as we can 
judge, all that after the precedent of St. Mark goes to 
Sorm the main theme of the Synoptic Gospels—the Passion 
and the narratives and discourses leading up to the Passion 
—was completely wanting in Q. Herein lies the funda- 
mental difference between the gospels and Q. The latter, in 
fact, was not a gospel at all in the sense that the Synop- 
tics are. The narrative of this source must therefore 
have been wanting in historical climax—no thread of 
historical continuity could have run through it, bind- 
ing the end to the beginning; for what climax or 
what thread of continuity could have existed where 
the Passion, and the thoughts connected with the 
Passion, were left out of consideration? ‘Thus Q in 
the main could only have been a compilation of 
sayings and discourses of varied content. There is 


1 Still one must remember that we are told in St. Mark vii. 1 
that ‘‘ There came together to Him the Pharisees, and certain of 
the scribes, which came from Jerusalem ’’—cf, vii. 5, &c. 


FORMAL CHARACTERISTICS 171 


no force in the objection that St. Matthew and 
St. Luke may have omitted the parts of Q which 
dealt with the Passion. If from St. Luke xvii. 34 to 
the end only two isolated verses can be proved to be 
derived from Q, or if from St. Matthew xv. 15 to the 
end only a very few isolated verses in chaps. xvii., 
XVlil., ΧΙΧ.» xxv., and a couple or so of longer passages 
in chaps. xxiii. and xxiv. belong to Ὁ, this cannot be 
merely accidental. A source which afforded the 
evangelists such ample and excellent material for the 
first half of their works would have been used by 
them elsewhere if it had contained further material. 
But may it not be that one of the two evangelists 
for some reason or other departed from the source 
while the other still followed it, so that the matter 
peculiar to him in the concluding third part of 
his work was derived from the source? ‘This is 
possible, and it will therefore be necessary to examine 
the matter which is peculiar to each of the two 
gospels, keeping this contingency in view. Until this 
is done, the only verdict which the facts before us 
allow us to give is that Q is a compilation of discourses 
and sayings of our Lord, the arrangement of which has 
no reference to the Passion, with an horizon which is as 
good as absolutely bounded by Galilee, without any 
clearly discernible bias, whether apologetic, didactic, 
ecclesiastical, national, or anti-national. So far as any 
purpose at all—beyond that of imparting catechetical 
instruction—can be discovered in the compilation, it 
consisted perhaps in an endeavour to give, with a 
certain degree of completeness, a representation of 
the main features of our Lord’s relationship with 


172 THE SAYINGS OF JESUS 


His environment. Perhaps an investigation of the 
order of the sections will help us further. 


IV.—Tue Orper or THE SECTIONS 


Since we may regard St. Matthew as independent 
of St. Luke and vice versd, it follows that if they 
agree in the order in which they present sections 
which do not occur in St. Mark, that order is 
thereby proved to be the order of the source. This 
point has been rightly emphasised by the critics, 
and has lately been investigated by Wernle and 
Wellhausen (“ Einleitung,” 5. 65 4). 

In the first place, the first thirteen sections show 
an astonishing coincidence in order :— 


St. Luke. St. Matthew. 
(1) iii. 7-9, 16, 17 =iii. 7-12 (The Baptist). 
(2) iv. 1-13 = iv. 1-11 (The Temptation). 


(3) vi. 20, 21-23 --ν. 2-4, 6, 11, 12 (Introduction 
to Sermon; the Beati- 


tudes). 

(4) vi. 29 =v. 39, 40 (Blow upon the 
cheek, robbery of gar- 
ment). 

(5) vi. 30 =v. 42 (Give to him that 
asketh). 

b 
(6) ae ᾿ : Ἢ Ἰ =v. 44-48 (Love your enemies). 
(7) vi. 31 = vii. 12 (Golden Rule). 


(8) vi.37, 38, 41,42 = vii. 1-5 (Judge not; Mote 
and Beam). 


ORDER OF SECTIONS 173 


[(9) vi. 39 = xv. 14 (Leaders of the Blind).] 

[(10) vi. 40 =x. 24, 25 (The disciple not 
above his master). ] 

(11) vi. 43, 44 =vii. 16-18; xii. 33 (The good 
and corrupt tree). 

(12) vi. 46-49 =vii. 21, 24-27 (The house 
upon the rock and upon 
the sand). 

(13) vii. 1-10 = vil. 28; vili. 5-10, 13 (Con- 


clusion of sermon; the 
centurion at Capernaum). 


We must accordingly judge that Q began with the 
preaching of the Baptist, that then there followed 
the story of the Temptation, then important parts 
of the so-called Sermon on the Mount,! which con- 
cluded with the notice: «After Jesus had spoken 
these words he entered into Capernaum,” and was 
immediately succeeded by the narrative of the cen- 
turion at Capernaum. The subject-matter in 
question in St. Luke, chaps. ili., ἵν.» vi. vii, is 
found in its entirety (with the exception of St. 
Luke vi. 39, 40) in St. Matt., chaps. iii., iv. v., vii. 
and viii. with very few changes in order. 

St. Luke now introduces in vii. 18-35 (sections 
14 and 15) the discourse concerning the Baptist ; 
St. Matthew does not give this discourse until 


1 St. Luke and St. Matthew differ concerning the site. The 
former says (Υ. 1) ἀνέβη els τὸ ὄρος, the latter (vi. 17) καταβὰς ἔστη 
ἐπὶ τόπου medwod. But both agree in stating that a great multitude 
(ὄχλος) was present, and that the sermon was nevertheless addressed 
to the disciples. These statements must have occurred in the 
source, 


174 THE SAYINGS OF JESUS 


chap. xi. and he inserts beforehand the sections 
concerning discipleship and the charge to the dis- 
ciples; in this gospel they occur in viii. 19-22; 
ix. 37, 38, and x.; in St. Luke these sections (16-22, 
24, 34, 38, 45, 46, 57) are found dispersed through- 
out chaps. ix. (2), 57-60; x. 2 (3), 5, 6 (7), 9, 
11, 12, (16); xii. 2-9, 51, 53; xiv: 26, 27; xvi. Se 

At first glance it seems impossible to throw light 
upon this chaos and to discover the order of the 
source, but as soon as one sets down the related 
sections side by side in lists the chaos falls into 
order in an astonishing fashion, as is seen from the 
following table :— 


(16) (St. Luke ix. 2 and St. Matt. x. 7). 
(17) Ὄ ix. 5'—60 7: Ὁ: "Ἢ viii. 19-22. 


(18) ἢ x. 2 Ἢ ix. 91, Sp. 
(9) ( » x. 3 ΩΣ Ἷ x. 16%): 
(20) 49 x. 5s 6 9) 2) x. 12, 13. 
(OES vias ke re ᾿ ΟΝ πεν 
(22) ᾧ x. 12 me a x. LS: 
(2S) Soe τις τι δ x. 40). 
(849) cto. eel κυ τς ᾿ x. 26-33. 
(38) ci mii. 51. ὅθ... ᾿ x. 34-36 
(45) τὸ xiv. 26 Be ss Kate 
(6) yc ae OT Son ee pee 


(57) ν xvii. 33 Ἢ i x. 39. 


As we see, the bracketed passages alone present 
difficulty and disturb the otherwise absolutely 
identical order. But in our previous critical in- 
vestigation we have already noted that these four 
passages rouse suspicion as to their belonging to 


ORDER OF SECTIONS 1%5 


Q. It is now still more uncertain whether as a 
whole they belong here;1 for when they are omitted 
there 1s absolutely no disturbance m order, the re- 
maining nine sections follow one another in exactly 
the same succession both in St. Matthew and St. 
Luke. J¢ is at the same time shown that these sections, 
which are indeed closely allied in subject-matter, were 
not first brought together by St. Matthew, but that in 
Q they stood in the same order of succession as that of 
the first gospel; for it is clear that St. Luke also 
found them in this order. It is noteworthy that 
this evangelist has distributed them throughout the 
chaps. ix., X., Xli., Xiv., xvil., without altering their 
order of succession.? 

Seeing then that the sections (16), (19), (24) are 
to be left on one side, and are perhaps to be 
altogether excluded from Q, the only question which 
remains open in connection with the order of the 
sections (1)-(8), (11)-(15), (17), (18), (20)-(22), (945). 
(38), (45), (46), (57), is whether the material belonging 
to Q in St. Matt. viii—x. originally stood before or 
after the discourse concerning the Baptist. As it 
is proved that St. Matthew (and not St. Luke) has 
reproduced the arrangement of the source in chapters 
viii—x., it is accordingly probable that we must also 
follow him here, and conclude that in Q the discourse 
concerning the Baptist came after the discourse to 
the disciples. 

Now follow, in St. Matt. xi. 21-23 and xi. 25-27 

1 Nevertheless internal reasons demand that at least section 21 
be assigned to Q. 


2 In an important passage we thus gain insight into St, Luke’s 
method of composition (vide supra, p. 169, note 2). 


176 “THE SAYINGS OF JESUS 


as in St. Luke x. 13-15 and x. 21-22, the Woe de- 
nounced against the Galilean cities (section 23), and 
the great thanksgiving to the Father (section 25). 

But just as in the case of sections 9 and 10, we 
cannot form any judgment as to their original 
position in Q, so is it also with all those passages 
of the Sermon on the Mount which we have not 
already given in the above list. If we take them 
in the order of St. Matthew, we have the following 
table :— 


St. Matt. v. 13 =(section 47)! 
eg AB ke Gat ee ee 
aes fel ee en Ὁ 
39 v. 25, 26 = 99 99) 
ΡΣ Naan ere δε 
See, eee 
ταν ὅν. A Bel 
yc ai Ree ee 
fe vi. 24 ΞΥ Re 
ον δε: 


99 Vii. ἼΞῚῚ = ( 99 28) 
» vii. 18,14=( 4 41) 


This is hopeless; for it is simply impossible to 
trace any sign of correspondence in the order of the 
parallel passages; we are therefore left at first quite 
in the dark as to the order of these sections in Q— 
indeed one of sceptical mind might doubt whether 
they belong to Q at all. 

The remaining seventeen sections give more fayvour- 


1 Let it be remembered that the numbers of the sections express 
their order in the text of St. Luke. 


ORDER OF SECTIONS by iy 


able results, if we only neglect the eight short sayings 
(sections 26, 34°, 42, 44, 50, 53, 55, 59) and the 
short parables (40 and 48); then we find in the 
following order :— 


Beelzebub (section 29). St. Matt. xii. 22, 23, 27, 
28, 30, 43, 45; St. Luke xi. 14, 19, 20, 23-26. 

Sign of Jonah (section 30). St. Matt. xii. 38, 39, 
41, 42; St. Luke xi. 16, 29, 30, 31. 

Woe against the Pharisees (section 33). St. Matt. 
xxiii. 4, 19, 23, 25, 27, 29, 30-32, 34-36; St. 
Luke xi. 46, 52, 42, 39, 44, 47, 49-51. 

The coming of the Lord as a thief; the trustworthy 
and the untrustworthy steward (section 37). St. 
Matt. xxiv. 43-51; St. Luke xii. 39, 40, 42-46. 

Jerusalem, Jerusalem (section 43). St. Matt. xxiii. 
37-39; St. Luke xiii. 34, 35. 

How oft shall I forgive? (section 54). St. Matt. 
xviii. 15, 21, 22; St. Luke xvii. 3, 4. 

The Parousia (section 56). St. Matt. xxiv. 26, 27, 28, 
37-41; St. Luke xvii. 23, 24, 37, 26, 27, 34, 35. 

To him that hath shall be given (section 58). St. 
Matt. xxv. 29; St. Luke xix. 26. 


Since we have already seen above that St. Luke 
has arbitrarily separated the section concerning 
Jerusalem from the Woe against the Pharisees, it is 
evident that the correspondence in order in this list 
is only disturbed by the question concerning for- 
giveness and by the splitting up of the discourse, 
St. Matt. xxiv. 26-51 (St. Luke has divided it and 
placed the second half before the first); otherwise the 
order is identical. It is of importance for our know- 

M 


178 THE SAYINGS OF JESUS 


ledge of Q to notice that discourses which had the 
end of the world in view evidently stood at the con- 
clusion of this source, such discourses, namely, as the 
Woe against the Pharisees, the prophecy of judg- 
ment upon Jerusalem, the coming of the Lord as a 
thief in the night, the faithful and unfaithful steward, 
the warning against false Christs with the announce- 
ment of the Parousia, lastly, the saying, «To him 
that hath shall be given” (with its converse). 

From this investigation, which has been carried 
somewhat further than that of Wernle and Well- 
hausen, we derive the following results :— 

(1) The sections distinguished above by the 
numbers 1-8, 11-15, 17, 18, 20, 21, 22, 23, 25, 29; 
30, 33, 34°, 37, 38, 43, 45, 46, 56, 57, 58, permit 
of being arranged in an order which is practically 
identical in St. Matthew and St. Luke; they there- 
fore certainly belong to a single source.* 

(2) This source had an order which in essential 
points is natural and intelligible? It proceeded as 
follows :— 

The preaching of the Baptist. 
The story of the Temptation (probably pre- 
ceded by the Baptism of our Lord with the 


voice from heaven, vide infra). 


1 [I have long adopted an extremely sceptical attitude towards 
the hypothesis which assumes a single definite source for the 
material (not in St. Mark) which is common to St. Matthew and 
St. Luke; but the facts which are here disclosed seem to me to 
be conclusive (against Hilgenfeld, Zahn, Godet, and others). It is, 
moreover, astonishing how superficially and cursorily Zahn passes 
over this question in his voluminous ‘‘ Hinleitung’”’ (113, 5. 410 ff.) 

2 Of. Wernle, “ Synopt. Frage,” s. 226 ff. 


ORDER OF SECTIONS 179 


The most important parts of the Sermon on 
the Mount. 

The charge to the disciples concerning their 
mission. 

The discourse concerning the Baptist. 

The Woes against the cities. 

The great Thanksgiving to the Father. 

The Beelzebub section, and (bound up with it)— 

The sign of Jonah. 

The Woes against the Pharisees, together with 
the pronouncement of judgment against 
Jerusalem. 

The warning against false Christs; the discourse 
concerning the Parousia. 

The coming of the Son of Man as a thief in the 
night; the faithful and unfaithful steward. 

The saying that to him that hath shall be given, 
and the other saying that the disciples 
should govern the twelve tribes of Israel. 

The sections 9, 10, 16, 19, 24, 26-28, 31, 32, 34°, 
35, 36, 39-42, 44, 47-55 do not admit of being 
arranged in a definite order. 77 ts therefore only more 
or less probable that they belong to Q, and therefore in an 

investigation into the characteristics of Q they ought 
to be regarded as of only secondary authority 
(St. Matthew and St. Luke can well have depended 
upon more than one source for their common matter 
which is not found in St. Mark; still the difference 
in order is no proof in favour of such an hypothesis). 


1 δύ, Luke gives this saying (59) at the end, St. Matthew at a 
very much earlier point (in chap. xix.); perhaps St. Luke is in 
the right here. 


180 THE SAYINGS OF JESUS 


In this connection the following points must also be 
noted :— 

These twenty-seven sections are almost all of 
them short, indeed very short! Eighteen of them 
have been already included above among the very 
short sayings, and seven of them are short parables 
or only similitudes (9, 19, 31, 39, 40, 41, 48) which 
could easily change their place; only five sections (27, 
28, 35, 36, 54) are of greater extent. So far as their 
content is concerned, the majority of these sayings 
admirably suit the character of Q and give no occa- 
sion for postulating another source. 

(3) From the discourse to the disciples (.e. the 
subject-matter in St. Matt. x.), and from the fact 
that in the first gospel the sections 33 and 43, as 
well as sections 56 and 37, are correctly given in 
juxtaposition, we conclude that St. Matthew has 
preserved the order of the source more faithfully 
than St. Luke? It therefore follows with no slight 
probability that those parts of the Sermon on the 
Mount which are common to St. Matthew and St. 
Luke, and yet do not stand in the same order in the © 
two gospels (sections 27, 28, 31, 32, 35, 36, 39, 41, 
47, 49, 51, 52), occurred in Q in the order of St. 
Matthew, and that St. Luke has separated and dis- 
tributed them throughout his work for reasons which 
can no longer be discovered (in the belief that he 
could trace a better τάξις). We shall be justified in 
deciding similarly concerning other sections which 

1 Together they form scarcely a quarter of the whole contents 


of Q. : 
2 We now recognise that the great composite discourses of St, 
Matthew had their outline already given in Q. 


ORDER OF SECTIONS 181 


occur in different positions in St. Matthew and St. 
Luke, and in regarding St. Luke in this matter as 
capricious in the extreme. 

(4) Q was no gospel like St. Matthew, St. Mark, 
and St. Luke, and yet it was not a merely formless 
compilation of sayings and discourses of our Lord 
without any thread of connection. Rather we learn 
from the beginning and the conclusion (eschatolo- 
gical discourses) that it possessed a certain definite 
arrangement of subject-matter and the outlines of a 
chronological order. It was, however, in no sense a 
biographical narrative, but essentially a collection of 
discourses! ‘This is the very reason that it makes no 
mention of the Passion. Nor need we be surprised 
at the composition of a work which confined itself to 
the discourses and sayings of our Lord; indeed, if 
one keeps in mind the contemporary Jewish fashion, 
the composition of such a work is ὦ priori probable, 
and, moreover, finds support in Christian terminology, 
which from the first distinguished between the acts 


1 The seven narratives (vide supra, p. 163), which at least were 
included in Q, do not alter this character ; for in five of these the 
important feature is clearly a saying of our Lord, and the story is 
cursorily narrated only in order to give the occasion of the utter- 
ance. It is otherwise with the story of the Temptation, and, as 
it seems, with the narrative concerning the centurion. But the 
inclusion of the former becomes at once intelligible if the story 
of the Baptism was also included; in this case we must conceive 
of Q as a compilation of sayings which received its necessary 
determination, and thereby an historical character, in that it was 
prefaced by an account of the consecration of Jesus as the Messiah. 
This hypothesis is corroborated by the strongly Messianic char- 
acter of the story of the Temptation in Q (vide the following note). 
Accordingly, only the story of the Centurion seems to fall outside 
the framework of Q. Yet vide infra. 


189 THE SAYINGS OF JESUS 
and the sayings of Jesus (vide St. Paul’s Epistles; 


Acts i. 1: περὶ πάντων ὧν ἤρξατο ᾿Ἰησοῦς ποιεῖν τε καὶ 
διδάσκειν----15 St. Luke here thinking of his two main 
sources, St. Mark and Ὁ ?—cf. St. Luke xxiv. 19, &c.). 


V.—Can weE Discover aNy Trace oF Q IN THE 
Marrer ΤΗΑ͂Τ 15 Pecuuiar ΤῸ St. MatrHew 
or ΤῸ St. Luxe, or ἵν Inpirecr EvANGELIC 
TRADITION ? 


Seeing that Q is so neutral in linguistic character- 
istics, we can scarcely use arguments based upon 
phenomena of style and vocabulary in order to - 
prove that passages in question belong to Q. Nor 
does an analysis based upon phenomena of subject- 
matter promise much success. But one thing is 
at all events possible: we can distinguish numerous 
passages in both gospels which certainly could not 
have stood in Q. 

Let us begin with St. Matthew and with the 
Sermon on the Mount.! Of the passages that 
stand in St. Matt. v.—vii. and are wanting in St. 
Luke, it is possible that v. 14, 16 (Light of the 
world, City upon a hill), v. 41 (If one constrain 

1 Wellhausen (‘‘ Hinl.,” s. 74) judges that the Baptism of our 
Lord by St. John could not well have been absent from Q. There 
is by no means little to be said in favour of this theory (vide supra, 
and note that both ‘‘ ἀνήχθη ᾽ and ““ ὑπὸ τοῦ πνεύματος ᾿ in the story of 
the Temptation can only be understood in the light of the story of 
the Baptism)—and in this case there is much that is attractive in 
the hypothesis that the original form of the voice from heaven in 
St. Luke is to be derived from Q (vide Excurs. II.). But Well- 


hausen’s combination of the temptation by the devil with the 
temptation by St. Peter (St. Mark viii. 32, 33), and his confident 


OTHER TRACES OF Q 183 


thee to go one mile, then go two), vi. 34 (which 
finishes off the verses 25-33 belonging to Q), and 
vii. 22, 23 (Many will say to me in that day, &c.) 
stood in Q; all else, namely, v. 17, 19, 20-24, 27-381, 
33-38, 48; vi. 1-8 (14, 15), 16-18; vii. 6-15, 
must have been wanting in that source, because 
these passages are strongly marked by the peculiar 
characteristics of St. Matthew (better righteousness, 
formal directions concerning almsgiving, prayer, and 
fasting, &c., vide supra, p. 167) and because St. 
Luke offers absolutely no parallel to them. The 
by no means slight degree of homogeneity which 
is discernible in the passages in question (while 
nothing similar is found in the passages which 
certainly belong to Q) is in itself ἃ strong 
proof that they are alien to Q. They indeed 
all partake of that controversial attitude towards 
Judaism which is a peculiar characteristic of St. 
Matthew. 

The same may be said of the sayings concerning 
the Sabbath in xii. 5 ff, 11 f. Of the parables 
peculiar to St. Matthew in chap. xiii. the Buried 
Treasure and the Pearl (verses 44-46) may have 
stood in Q, because they are similar to the Mustard 
Seed and the Leaven;1 but we have no cer- 
tainty that this was so, especially as they are 


assertion that the ὕπαγε Σατανᾶ of St. Matthew is derived from the 
record of our Lord’s repulse of St. Peter, are rash. Wellhausen’s 
other conjecture that a trait in the story of the Baptism, in which 
St. Matthew differs from St. Mark, namely, St. John’s objection 
to baptize our Lord, had its origin in Q, is destitute of all founda- 
tion and is, according to Q, section 14, improbable. 

1 So Wernle, ‘‘ Synopt. Frage,”’ 5. 187. 


184 THE SAYINGS OF JESUS 


separated from the latter parables by the inter- 
pretation of the parable of the Tares and seem 
like an appendix added by St. Matthew. No one 
is likely to claim the parables of the Tares and 
of the Draw-net for Q, any more than the con- 
cluding passage (xiii. 51 f.) of the collection of 
parables in chapter xiii. 

The story of St. Peter’s walking on the sea 
(xiv. 28-31) is a narrative of entirely secondary 
character, likewise the words addressed to St. Peter 
concerning the Rock upon which the Church would 
be built (xvi. 17-19), perhaps also the story of 
the coin in the fish’s mouth (xvii. 24-27), cer- 
tainly the discourse on discipline in the Church 
(xviii. 16-18). Possibly xviii. 10 (The angels of 
the little ones) stood in Q; that the parables of 
the Great Supper (xxii. 1-11) and the parable of 
the Talents belong to Q is not impossible, as we 
have seen (pp. 119 4); but we can arrive at no 
certainty on this point—above all, we can no longer 
restore the form in which they stood in 9. All 
that remains—the parables and discourses that occur 
in the last chapter of St. Matthew preceding the 
Passion—must probably be kept distinct from Q, 
for they present no indication of relationship to 
that source As for the narratives peculiar to 


1 The order in which the parable of the Talents occurs in the 
two gospels is in favour of its belonging to Q; for it is found in 
St. Matt. xxv. and in St. Luke xix., thus in both cases it follows 
the discourse concerning the Parousia, St. Matt. xxiv. and St. 
Luke xvii. This is not so in the case of the Great Supper (St. 
Matt. xxii, and St. Luke xiv.). 

2 Naturally, in the case of many parables and discourses, the 
‘* possibility’ of such relationship cannot be disputed. 


OTHER TRACES OF 9 185 


the account of the Passion in St. Matthew, it 
would be a most arbitrary proceeding to assign 
these to Q, seeing that even the prophecies of the 
Passion are wanting in this source and that these 
passages of St. Matthew are secondary or even 
tertiary in character. 

In St. Luke the situation is not different; we 
can state with considerable probability that such 
and such passages that are peculiar to St. Luke 
did not stand in Q—all the narratives, discourses, 
and parables which specially emphasise the con- 
trast between the poor and the rich and our Lord’s 
love for sinners, and are so characteristic of St. 
Luke’s peculiar genius. Apart from these, there 
is much that is peculiar to this gospel which may 
possibly have belonged to Q; but I have sought in 
vain for any clear principles upon which a probable 
proof of such relationship could be based. 

We must content ourselves with this. It is a priors 
probable, indeed quite certain, that much which occurs 
only in St. Matthew or in St. Luke is derived 
from Q, but except the parable of the Mustard Seed 
which grows into a great tree—and this has been 
by us already assigned to Q, though it also occurs 
in St. Mark—I believe that there is no part of 
the subject-matter peculiar to any one-of the two 
gospels which we are justified in definitely assigning 
to Q. 

' Any one that adopts the standpoint of Resch 
and assumes that the “apostolic source” existed for 


1 We must therefore be more discreet in this connection than 
Wernle and many other scholars. 


186 THE SAYINGS OF JESUS 


centuries side by side with our gospels, and with them 
exercised influence upon the evangelic tradition, will 
attempt to discover passages of Q in the gospel 
sayings found in the Fathers. He, however, who 
cannot convince himself that there is any proof, or 
possibility of proof, that the later tradition has been 
influenced by the sources of our gospels, will hope for 
very little from the examination of the « Agrapha” 
and related material. Nevertheless, I have investi- 
gated afresh the material which Resch has collected 
(«Texte und Unters.,” Bd. 5, 10, and 30). The 
appearance of light at the Baptism (Bd. 30, Heft 
3-4, 5. 36), which is a very early tradition and is 
found in Codd. Vercell. and Sangerm. at St. Matt. 
iii. 15; the saying found in Syr. Cur. at St. Matt. 
xx. 28 (cf also the same passage in Cod. D) ὑμεῖς 
δὲ ζητεῖτε ἐκ μικροῦ αὐξῆσαι καὶ μὴ ἐκ μείζονος 
ἔλαττον εἶναι (lc. s. 89); the Logia in 1 Clem. ii. 
13, 46 and Polycarp. ii, and in Acts xx. 35; the 
ἐν οἷς ἂν ὑμᾶς καταλάβω, ἐν τούτοις καὶ κρινῶ of 
Justin Martyr and others (/.c. 5. 102); the saying 
strongly attested from Clement of Alexandria on- 
wards: αἰτεῖσθε, φησί, Ta μεγάλα, καὶ τὰ μικρὰ ὑμῖν 
προστεθήσεται (ἰ.6. 5. 111); the yet more constantly 
quoted saying: γίνεσθε δόκιμοι τραπεζῖται (8. 112 ff.) ; 
the saying attested by Origen: διὰ τοὺς ἀσθενοῦντας 
ἠσθένουν Kat διὰ τοὺς πεινῶντας ἐπείνων καὶ διὰ τοὺς 
διψῶντας ἐδίψγων (5. 182); the saying: σώζου σὺ καὶ 
ἡ ψυχή σου (8. 180); the saying in Clement of 
Alexandria and Tertullian: εἶδες τὸν ἀδελφόν cov, 
εἶδες TOV θεόν cov (s. 182); the saying in Origen: ὁ 
ἐγγύς μου ἐγγὺς τοῦ πατρός (MS. πυρός), 6 δὲ μακρὰν 


OTHER TRACES OF 9 187 


am’ ἐμοῦ μακρὰν ἀπὸ τῆς βασιλείας (8. 185)—these 
are passages which could be offered for consideration 
here. 

It is indeed most improbable that the interpolations 
found in some manuscripts of the gospels, of which 
two examples have been given at the beginning of the 
above list, are derived from Q. Seeing that they can 
scarcely have belonged to the original text either of 
St. Matthew or St. Luke (cf especially the interpola- 
tions in D)—in which case only could there be any 
real question concerning their origin from Q—they 
must therefore have been derived either from other 
written gospels or from oral tradition. ΤῸ suppose 
that they were derived directly from Q, the source of 
St. Matthew and St. Luke, would be to assume a 
remarkable accident without any justification, seeing 
that these passages show no relationship in subject- 
matter with Q. 

The quotations in the Acts of the Apostles and in 
the epistles of Clement of Rome and of Polycarp 
perhaps afford more promising material; for these 
writings date from a time at which Q may still have 
been known and when the canonical gospels had not 
yet reached all parts of the Church, or at least were 
not everywhere recognised as canonical. It is there- 
fore remarkable that the five sayings which are quoted 
in these writings have introductions of essentially the 
same character as is here seen :— 


Acts xx. 35: ... μνημονεύειν τε τῶν λόγων 
~ , Ἢ A [2 93 Ἁ > M , , ’ 
τοῦ κυριον Ἰησοῦ, ὅτι autos εἶπεν' Maxapioy ἐστιν 

~ , 
μᾶλλον διδόναι ἢ λαμβάνειν. 


188 THE SAYINGS OF JESUS 


1 Clem. xiii: μάλιστα μεμνημένοι τῶν λόγων 

΄“- ’ ? ~ a I , Ε] , 
τοῦ κυρίου Ιησοῦ, οὗς ἐλάλησεν διδάσκων ἐπιείκειαν 

ν “ « ‘\ > ? = 4 9 
καὶ μακροθυμίαν" οὕτως γὰρ εἶπεν" ᾿Εἰλεᾶτε ἵνα ἐλεη- 
θῆτε, ἀφίετε ἵνα ἀφεθῇ ὑμῖν' ὡς ποιεῖτε. οὕτω ποιηθή- 

’ υμ On 
e a e 3 e “- 
σεται ὑμῖν" ὡς δίδοτε, οὕτως δοθήσεται υμῖν' ὡς κρίνετε, 
οὕτως κριθήσεσθε: ὡς χρηστεύεσθε, οὕτως χρηστευθή- 
σεται ὑμῖν: ᾧ μέτρῳ μετρεῖτε, ἐν αὐτῷ μετρηθήσεται 
ὑμῖν. 

1 Clem. xlvi.: μνήσθητε τῶν λόγων τοῦ ᾿]ησοῦ 
τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν: εἶπεν yap’ Οὐαὶ τῷ ἀνθρώπῳ 
ἐκείνῳ: καλὸν ἣν αὐτῷ εἰ μὴ ἐγεννήθη ἢ ἕνα τῶν 
ἐκλεκτῶν μου σκανδαλίσαι. κρεῖττον ἣν αὐτῷ περιτεθῆναι 

~ , 
μύλον καὶ καταποντισθῆναι εἰς τὴν θάλασσαν; ἢ ἕνα 
τῶν ἐκλεκτῶν μου διαστρέψαι. 
ee Ω » 

Polyc. c. ii: μνημονεύοντες ὧν εἶπεν ὁ κύριος 
διδάσκων: μὴ κρίνετε, ἵνα μὴ κριθῆτε" ἀφίετε, καὶ 
ς , € “ 9 ~ e > ~ 
ἀφεθήσεται ὑμῖν: ἐλεάτε, ἵνα ἐλεηθῆτε: ᾧ MET PD 
μετρεῖτε, ἀντιμετρηθήσεται ὑ ὑμῖν" καὶ ὅτι: μακάριοι οἱ 
πτωχοὶ καὶ οἱ διωκόμενοι ἕνεκεν δικαιοσύνης, ὅτι αὐτῶν 
ἐστιν ἡ βασιλεία τοῦ θεοῦ. 

ee ~ « 
1 Clem. ii.: πᾶντες ἐταπεινο ρονεῖτε . . . ὑποτασ- 
Ἵ ἄλλον ἣ ὑ Ἵ ἥδ διδό ἢ 
σόμενοι μᾶλλον ἢ ὑποτάσσοντες, ἥδιον διδόντες ἢ 
λαμβάνοντες τοῖς ἐφοδίοις τοῦ Χριστοῦ ἀρκού- 
μενοι καὶ προσέχοντες, τοὺς λόγους οὐτοῦ ἐπιμελῶς 
ἐνεστερνισμένοι ἦτε τοῖς σπλαγγνοις. 


There is no doubt that in all these passages the 
sayings of our Lord are referred to as a compilation, 
and the form of the quotations suggests that this 
compilation was crystallised in a written document 
which bore the title, « Λόγοι τοῦ κυρίου ’Incov,” and 
was regarded as giving the authoritative teaching of 


OTHER TRACES OF 9 189 


our Lord.’ In such a case identity with Q would be 
practically proved. But, in the first place, we can 
here only arrive at a certain degree of probability ; 
in the second place, close examination of the subject- 
matter of these sayings is not favourable to the 
hypothesis; for (@) if the saying, «It is more blessed 
to give than to receive” stood in Q, why has St. 
Luke not taken it up into his gospel? (yet this is 
not a very weighty objection); (6) in Polycarp the 
formula of quotation and the quotation itself (the 
latter only partly and freely reproduced) are most 
probably derived from 1 Clem. xiii.; for Polycarp 
has made constant use of the epistle of Clement 
(« Clement. Alex. Strom.,” ii. 18, is also dependent 
upon the same passage); (c) the first saying quoted 
by Clement of Rome in the parts which have no 
direct parallel in St. Matthew and St. Luke (ἐλεᾶτε 
iva ἐλεηθῆτε; ἀφίετε ἵνα ἀφεθῃ ὑμῖν: ὡς ποιεῖτε, οὕτω 
ποιηθήσεται ὑμῖν" ὡς δίδοτε, οὕτως δοθήσεται ὑμῖν" 
ὡς χρηστεύεσθε, οὕτως χρηστευθήσεται ὑμῖν) may very 
well have stood in Q; but the part in which it 
coincides in subject-matter with Q, as we have given 
this source above, has a different wording. In place 
of μὴ κρίνετε; ἵνα μὴ κριθῆτε; ἐν ᾧ γὰρ κρίματι κρίνετε; 
κριθήσεσθε we have ws κρίνετε; οὕτως κριθήσεσθες. It 
may, however, be objected that Clement here has 
simply omitted a phrase or so, and for the rest has 
followed another translation of Q; but μὴ κρίνετε; 
ἵνα κτλ. does not at all suit his context. The 


1 After having written this I see from “ Theol. Jahresbericht” 
for 1905 (iii. Abt. 5. 246), that Harris, and lately Lake (in ‘‘ Hibb. 
Journ,” iii, 332 ff.), have preceded me in commending this 
hy pothesis. 


100 


THE SAYINGS 


OF JESUS 


dependence upon Q remains therefore uncertain. 


(d) 


The second passage of Clement (I neglect «Clem. 
Alex. Strom.,” iii. 18, because it depends upon « Clem. 
Rom.”) reproduces sayings which are found in all 
three evangelists—they may, nevertheless, have also 
stood in Q; indeed, we have shown that the allied 
words: ἀνάγκη ἐλθεῖν τὰ σκάνδαλα, πλὴν οὐαὶ τῷ 
ἀνθρώπῳ δι’ οὗ τὸ σκάνδαλον ἔρχεται; probably stood 
in Q (vide section 53). 


St. Mark xiv. 
21: οὐαὶ τῷ ἀν- 
θρώπῳ ἐκείνῳ δι᾿ 
οὗ ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ ἀν- 
θρώπου παραδί- 
δοται" καλὸν αὐτῷ 
εἰ οὐκ ἐγεννήθη ὁ 
ἄνθρωπος ἐκεῖνος. 


St. Mark ix. 
42: ds ἂν σκαν- 
δαλίσῃ ἕνα τῶν 
μικρῶν 
τῶν πιστευόντων, 


τούτων 


καλόν ἐστιν αὐτῷ 
μᾶλλον εἰ περίκει- 
ται μύλος ὀνικὸς 
περὶ τὸν τράχηλον 
αὐτοῦ καὶ βέβλη- 
ται εἰς τὴν θάλασ- 
᾿ σαν. 


St. Matt. xxvi. 
24: as St. Mark 
(except that ἣν 
is added after 
καλὸν). 


St. Matt. xviii. 
6,7: first as in 
St. Mark, then 
πιστευόντων εἰς 
ἐμέ" συμφέρει 
αὐτῷ ἵνα κρε- 
μασθῇ μύλος 
ὀνικὸξ περὶ τὸν 
τράχηλον 
καὶ καταποντισθῇ 
ἐν τῷ πελάγει 
τῆς θαλάσσης. 
oval τῷ κόσμῳ 
ἀπὸ τῶν σκαν- 
δάλων᾽ ἀνάγκη 
γὰρ ἐλθεῖν τὰ 
σκάνδαλα, πλὴν 
οὐαὶ τῷ ἀνθρώπῳ 
δι’ οὗ τὸ σκάνδα- 
λον ἔρχεται, 


αὐτοῦ 


St. Luke xxii. 
22: οὐαὶ τῷ ἀν- 
θρώπῳ ἐκείνῳ δι᾽ 


οὗ παραδίδοται 
[scil. ὁ υἱὸς τ. 
ἀνθ.1. 


St. Luke xvii. 
1, 2: ἀνένδεκτόν 
ἐστιν τοῦ τὰ σκάν- 
δαλα μὴ ἐλθεῖν, 
πλὴν οὐαὶ dv’ οὗ 
ἔρχεται" λυσι- 
τελεῖ αὐτῷ εἰ 
λίθος μυλικὸς 
περίκειται περὶ 
τὸν τράχηλον av- 
τοῦ καὶ ἔρριπται 
εἰς τὴν θάλασσαν, 
ἢ ἵνα σκανδαλίσῃ 
τῶν μικρῶν τού- 
των ἕνα. 


Clem. Rom. 
oval τῷ ἀνθρώπῳ 
ἐκείνῳ" καλὸν ἣν 
αὐτῷ εἰ μὴ ἐγεν- 
νήθη ἢ ἕνα τῶν - 
ἐκλεκτῶν μου 
σκανδαλίσαι. 


κρεῖττον ἣν av- 
τῷ περιτεθῆναι 
μύλον καὶ κατα- 
ποντισθῆναι, Fh 
ἕνα τῶν ἐκλεκτῶν 
μου διαστρέψαι. 


OTHER TRACES OF Q 191 


The interpretation of the phenomena presented 
in the above table is difficult. It is possible that 
Clement erroneously understood the saying con- 
cerning Judas in a general sense and combined 
it wrongly with the saying concerning offending 
the little ones, freely reproduced by him as 
“elect”; it is, however, also possible that not 
only the general clause, ἀνάγκη ἐλθεῖν τὰ σκάνδαλα, 
πλὴν ovat τῷ ἀνθρώπῳ dt οὗ TO σκάνδαλον ἔρχεται; 
stood in Q, but also something concerning offending 
the elect in just that double form in which Clement 
gives it (this would then be the more ancient form, 
while St. Mark has introduced the special reference 
to Judas); St. Matthew and St. Luke had St. Mark 
and Q before them, and have on the whole followed 
the former in that they have reproduced from Q 
only the general saying concerning offences. Yet 
this second explanation is far less probable than 
the first; for (1) it is strange that they have both 
hit upon the same solution of the problem (yet in 
St. Luke xvii. 1, 2, the order is different from that 
in St. Matt. xviii. 6, '7); (2) we can form no definite 
conception of the wording of this hypothetical text 
of Q (according to Clement); in its two halves 
it is extremely tautologous, and accordingly gives 
the impression that these two halves were originally 
separate from one another and came from different 
sources (just as it is in the three gospels). Lastly, 
we have the ἐκείνῳ at the beginning, which tells a 
tale. There is therefore at least no surety that 
we have Q before us here, however attractive the 
hypothesis may be and though it may claim the 


192 THE SAYINGS OF JESUS 


support of what seem to be translation-variants. 
(6) Neither can we well claim for Q that it is the 
source of the second half of the quotation in Polycarp ; 
for though «“μακάριοι of πτωχοί" (without τῷ πνεύματι) 
answers to the wording of Q (and of St. Luke), yet 
διωκόμενοι ἕνεκεν δικαιοσύνης, which is found in St. 
Matthew, cannot be proved to have stood in Q. 

Accordingly we must reluctantly abandon the hope 
of recovering from these quotations, which seem to pre- 
suppose our gospels, anything which certainly belongs 
to Q; there is, in fact, no sufficient basis of proba- 
bility for the hypothesis that these “ λόγοι τοῦ κυρίου 
Ἰησοῦ " are identical with Q. The case is here one of 
very moderate possibility, and it is permissible only 
with considerable reservation to claim the quotations 
in 1 Clem. xiii., xlvi. for 9. 

If, however, our investigation of these passages 
leads to such unsure results, the uncertainty is very 
much greater in regard to the « Agrapha” which are 
found in writers from Justin downwards. In all 
these cases it is more probable that these sayings 
have been derived from the gospel of the Egyptians, 
the gospel of St. Peter, or other sources, than that 
they were directly taken from Q. This specially 
holds good of the sayings discovered by Grenfell and 


Hunt, and likewise of those in the Clementine 


1 If it is thought certain that ““ λόγοι xr.” in Clement signifies 
the title of a book, which must therefore be identical with Q, it 
will then be necessary to assume a separate recension of Q, which 
was afterwards amplified from the canonical gospels. It is in 
favour of this hypothesis that in St. Matthew (and so also probably 
in Q) the Sermon on the Mount is introduced with the words: 
ἐδίδασκεν αὐτοὺς λέγων, 


Q AND ST. MARK 193 


Homilies, though it is possible that elements of great 
antiquity are preserved therein. We know that the 
gospels mentioned were still read in the second and 
third centuries, while we have no such knowledge 
concerning Q. ‘Therefore in each particular case the 
burden of proof rests with him who advances the 
claims of Q; but with Resch and others of his way 
of thinking one seeks in vain for real proofs.! 


VI.—Tue EssentiaL CHARACTERISTICS OF THE Con- 
TENTS OF Q. A CoMPARISON OF Q@ WITH THE 
GosPeL ΟΕ St. Mark. 


In the comprehensive chapter of his « Einleitung 
in die drei ersten Evangelien,” ss. 73-89, Wellhausen 
has made a complete comparison of Q and St. Mark. 
Since, according to him, mutual independence is « not 
to be thought of,” he discusses the question of priority 
and decides in favour of St. Mark. Compared with 
St. Mark the content of Q is everywhere, or almost 


1 Let me bring forward yet another instance. In 2 Clem. v. 
we read: λέγει 6 κύριος" "Ἔσεσθε ws ἀρνία ἐν μέσῳ λύκων. This form 
of the saying seems to be more ancient than the form which we 
have ascertained for Q in section 19: ἰδοὺ ἐγὼ ἀποστέλλω ὑμᾶς ws 
πρόβατα ἐν μέσῳ λύκων. But without regard to the fact that 2 Clem. 
has probably used an uncanonical gospel which was certainly not 
Q (probably the gospel of the Egyptians), we have already seen 
above, pp. 13, 174 f., that the saying is perhaps not to be assigned 
to Q, but that its presence in St. Matthew and St. Luke is to be 
attributed to another source. The gospel of the Egyptians (the 
gospel, that is, which is used by 2 Clem.) is on the whole certainly 
secondary to Q, indeed to the Synoptic Gospels; yet, like the gospel 
of the Hebrews, it has preserved some very ancient elements, 

N 


194 THE SAYINGS OF JESUS 


everywhere, secondary, and presents the traditions 
concerning Jesus in a form which had already ad- 
vanced in the direction of definite Christian dogma 
and of ecclesiasticism. I, on the contrary, believe 
that I can show in the following pages that Well- 
hausen in his characteristic of Q has unconsciously 
allowed himself to be influenced by the tendencies of 
St. Matthew and St. Luke, that he has attributed to 
Q what belongs to these gospels, and that in not a 
few passages he has preferred St. Mark on insufficient 
grounds. ‘The conclusions at which I have arrived 
stand therefore in strong opposition to the results of 
his criticism. 

In comparing Q with St. Mark we must base 
our investigation on those passages which certainly 
belong to Q—the probable constituents of Ὁ 
must be marshalled in the second line for our 
review. 

St. Mark begins with the preaching of the Bap- 
tist, the baptism of our Lord, and a summary account 
of a forty days’ temptation of our Lord in the 
wilderness; Q, with the preaching of the Baptist 
(the baptism of our Lord) and a detailed account 
of a temptation of our Lord to disbelief in His 
Messianic vocation, which took place after a forty 
days’ abode in the wilderness. Even if, as is pro- 
bable, the baptism of our Lord stood in Q, it does 
not necessarily follow that St. Mark and Q are de- 
pendent upon one another ; for it may very well have 
happened that at a particular epoch these sections 
were the regular passages with which the catechetical 
tradition of the sayings of Jesus the Messiah began 


Q AND ST. MARK 195 


(St. Luke i. 4).. Here, however, the subject-matter 
of Q is clearly the more original, for St. Mark only 
introduces the Baptist in order that he may point 
forward to the « Mightier One,” while Q first describes 
the preaching of the Baptist concerning repentance 
and judgment, and then only attaches the reference 
to the “ Mightier One” that was coming. Besides, 
St. Mark is guilty of hysteron-proteron in his de- 
scription of the Coming One as one that would baptize 
with the Holy Ghost, while Q speaks of Him as of 
one who would appear with the fire of judgment and 
would thoroughly purge His floor. Similarly, in 
regard to the story of the Temptation, it can neither 
be proved that Q is dependent upon St. Mark, nor 
can it be asserted that in St. Mark the Temptation 
is conceived as being non-Messianic in character,’ nor 
can the narrative in Q be claimed as a later legend. 
If the story of the Temptation, with the voice from 
heaven in the form, “Thou art my Son, to-day 
have I begotten Thee,” stood in Q, it is then natural 
that the devil should address himself to Jesus as the 
Son of God, and should wish to upset His faith in 
His Divine Sonship. There is no need to suppose 
that this must have been a later tradition than the 
shorter account of St. Mark, which always arouses the 
suspicion that St. Mark here knew more than he has 


1 The priority of Q is here recognised by Wellhausen (s. 74). 

2 Wellhausen (/.c.) makes this assertion ; but if the Spirit which 
descended upon Jesus drives Him inio the wilderness, where He is 
tempted for forty days of Satan, surrounded by the uncanny 
creatures of the desert, while the angels supply Him with food, 
this can then be no ordinary temptation but is the period par 
exeellence of Messianic temptation. 


196 THE SAYINGS OF JESUS 


told us,! for legend is not accustomed to work by a 
method so concise and allusive.” 

~The Sermon on the Mount now follows in Q. St. 
Mark here affords us only four parallel sayings.® He 
writes (iv. 24): ἐν ᾧ μέτρῳ μετρεῖτε μετρηθήσεται 
ὑμῖν (just as in Q, section 8). Again, in ix. 50—out 
of connection with his context—: καλὸν τὸ ἅλας" ἐὰν δὲ 


1 The circumstances may be conjectured to have been as 
follows :—St. Mark was obliged to touch upon the fact of the 
Messianic temptation by Satan, since it belonged to the stereo- 
typed material of catechetical instruction (St. Luke i. 4: περὶ ὧν 
κατηχήθης λόγων); it was, however, known to him, not in the 
narrative of Q but in another form. If the narrative of Q had 
been known to him, the trait of fasting could not have been 
omitted by him, nor could he have mentioned the wild beasts and 
the angels in his short summary. St. Mark presupposes a legend 
where there was no mention of our Lord’s fasting in the wilder- 
ness, where, on the contrary, it was recorded that He was fed by 
angels, so that there could scarcely have been a place therein for 
a temptation by means of hunger. Nothing is said of the nature 
of the temptation of Satan—that the wild beasts played a réle 
therein is uncertain—but that St. Mark knew something about 
them is more than probable. The ‘‘Gospel of Jesus Christ,” 
according to him, first begins with verse 14; in a double intro- 
duction, verses 1-8 and 9-13, he simply says what is absolutely 
necessary concerning the Baptist and his testimony, and con- 
cerning the Divine Sonship of Jesus. The wondrous “ φαντασία" 
(Theodore of Mopsuestia) of the story of the Temptation in Q is 
independent of St. Mark, and may have arisen at any time after 
the year A.D. 30—1z.e. it possibly belongs to the primitive tradition. 

2 It is quite another question whether the story of the Baptism 
(Spirit and voice from heaven) was the oldest.form of the tradi- 
tion. I am with Wellhausen of the conviction that it was not, 
rather that it has taken the place of the more ancient story of the 
Transfiguration. But this question cannot be discussed here, as 
it belongs rather to the period of development that lies behind 
Q and St. Mark. 

8 And in the case of three of these it is only probable that they 
stood in Q. 


Q AND SI. MARK 197 


τὸ ἅλας ἄναλον γένηται; ἐν τίνι αὐτὸ ἀρτύσετε ; while 
Q, section 47, reads: ὑμεῖς ἐστε τὸ ἅλας [τῆς γῆς" ἐὰν 
δὲ τὸ ἅλας μωρανθῇ: ἐν τίνι ἁλισθήσεταιι Here, in 
the first place, we notice a genuine translation-variant, 
and next, that Q interprets the “salt” as referring to 
the disciples. This is probably the original reference, 
as Wellhausen also recognises (“ Mark,” s. 82).—In 
St. Mark iv. 21 we read—again out of connection 
with his context— : μήτι ἔρχεται ὁ λύχνος ἵνα ὑπὸ τὸν 
μόδιον τεθῇ . .. οὐχ ἵνα ἐπὶ τὴν λυχνίαν τεθῇ, In 
Q, section 31, we find: οὐ καίουσιν λύχνον καὶ τιθέασιν 
αὐτὸν ὑπὸ τὸν μόδιον ἀλλ᾽ ἐπὶ τὴν λυχνίαν, καὶ λάμπει 
πᾶσιν τοῖς ἐν τῇ οἰκίᾳ. In St. Mark the « light” 
represents the teaching of our Lord, in St. Matthew 
the good conduct of the disciples (this is secondary) 
—hbut this is only the interpretation of St. Matthew. 
St. Luke, who gives the saying twice, gives it first 
(viii. 16) with the same significance and in the 
same connection as St. Mark, and a second time 
(xi. 13), according to Q, without reference to the 
disciples. Thus mm Q the reference to the disciples was 
unexpressed, and Q was therefore not secondary when 
compared with St. Mark. Were also note the trans- 
lation-variants.—St. Mark writes (x. 11 f.): ὃς ἂν 
ἀπολύσῃ THY γυναῖκα αὐτοῦ καὶ γαμήση ἄλλην; μοιχᾶται 
ἐπ’ αὐτήν: καὶ ἐὰν αὐτὴ ἀπολύσασα τὸν ἄνδρα αὐτῆς 
γαμήσῃ ἄλλον [or probably more correctly, καὶ ἐὰν 
γυνὴ ἐξέλθη ἀπὸ τοῦ ἀνδρὸς αὐτῆς καὶ ἄλλον γαμήσῃ]; 
μοιχᾶται. Here we have ascertained for the text of 
Q in section 52: [ἐγὼ λέγω ὑμῖν]: πᾶς ὁ ἀπολύων 
τὴν γυναῖκα αὐτοῦ ποιεῖ αὐτὴν μοιχευθῆναι; καὶ ὃς 
ἐὰν ἀπολελυμένην γαμήσῃ: μοιχᾶται. Wellhausen’s 


198 THE SAYINGS OF JESUS 


judgment on this verse depends upon the supposition 
that the words immediately preceding it in St. Luke 
(εὐκοπώτερον δέ ἐστιν τὸν οὐρανὸν καὶ τὴν γῆν παρελ- 
θεῖν ἢ τοῦ νόμου μίαν κεραίαν πεσεῖν, Xvi. 17) are to 
be regarded as explaining, or rather confirming, the 
statement of the verse concerning divorce. But verse 
17 belongs, as is shown by the δέ, to verse 16, and is 
intended to correct the seeming Antinomianism of the 
words: ὁ νόμος Kal οἱ προφῆται μέχρι ᾿Ιωάννου; while 
the saying concerning divorce then follows without 
any connection. We have therefore no surety that 
even St. Luke intended that verses 17 and 18 should 
be taken together. As for Q, it is inconceivable that 
they stood together in that source, for St. Matthew 
presents them in complete separation in v. 18 and 
32. Then again, it is more than questionable that 
St. Mark x. forms the starting-point for the version 
of the saying inQ. St. Mark says: « He who divorces 
his wife and marries another commits adultery against 
her, and likewise she that is divorced and marries 
again commits adultery.” Q says: “ He who divorces 
his wife makes her an adulteress [because she will 
marry again], and the new husband also commits 
adultery.” That there is a difference here is clear, 
but it is not to be sought where Wellhausen sees it. 
According to Wellhausen, in St. Mark’s form the 
adultery lies not in the divorce but only in the 
marrying again; but this is quite improbable, for 
(1) it is opposed to the context in St. Mark (verses 
1-9), and (2) it is artificially read into the words of 
St. Mark. And besides, especially in an Oriental 
environment, a second marriage was sure to follow a 


Q AND ST. MARK 199 


divorce. ‘Therefore the difference between St. Mark 
and @ does not lie in this point, but rather in the 
circumstance that St. Mark declares the husband and 
the wife, if she marries again, to be guilty of adultery, 
while Q condemns the wife who marries again and her 
new husband. Yet this difference is only in appear- 
ance; Q has only left unexpressed what was self- 
evident ; according to my opinion, this writer intended 
to say: “He who divorces his wife (not only makes 
himself guilty of adultery, but besides) calls a twofold 
adultery into being: she that is divorced together 
with her new husband are guilty of adultery.” The 
saying is then one of pregnant conciseness and force ; ἦ 
while the saying in St. Mark is feeble in comparison. 
Thus Q, section 52, is certainly not derived from St. 
Mark x. 11 f. It follows, therefore, that neither is 
Q 52 founded upon St. Mark x. 1-9, but in the most 
favourable case it must be assumed that there was in 
@ an account parallel to that of St. Mark, of which 
Q 52 formed the conclusion. Nevertheless, the verse 
requires no other context than that given in St. 
᾿ Matthew: ᾿Ερέθη- ὃς ἀπολύσῃ τὴν γυναῖκα αὐτοῦ; 
δότω αὐτῇ ἀποστάσιον. Yet the context in Q could 
scarcely have been quite like this. 

These are the only passages in which St. Mark 
affords a parallel to those parts of St. Matt. v.—vii. 
which belong to Q; for the theory that St. Mark 


1 St. Matthew alone has preserved it so; St. Luke has already 
modified the first half of the saying in accordance with the form 
in St. Mark. St. Matthew, however, has also offended in that 
he has inserted παρεκτὸς λόγου mopyvelas—an interpolation which 
is self-evident, and yet, as it stands, quite out of place in the 
context. 


200 THE SAYINGS OF JESUS 


xi. 25 is the germ of the Lord’s Prayer may be left 
on one side. 

If we now investigate the contents of the passages 
of the Sermon on the Mount which stood in Q 
(of the first-class sections 3—8, of the second-class 
sections 9, 10, 27, 28, 31, 32, 35, 36, 39, 41, 47, 49, 
51, 52), we notice scarcely anything which might 
not pass as primary tradition. But Wellhausen is 
of another opinion (vide his note on St. Matt. v. 1 ff). 
He finds that just as Q runs parallel to St. Mark 
in the preaching of the Baptist (the Baptism) and 
the Temptation, so is it also with the Sermon on 
the Mount, for both documents now proceed to 
give a programme of the preaching of our Lord, 
Q a manifesto which is evidently an artificial fabrica- 
tion, St. Mark (i. 15) a short and unassuming general 
summary of the ever-recurring subject of our Lord’s 
preaching. «“ And the difference which exists between 
the two is not simply formal but extends also to 
the subject-matter. In St. Mark our Lord’s theme 
is the same as that of the Baptist, namely, weravorca— 
men are warned to repent by the rousing proclama- 
tion of the near approach of the Kingdom of God. 
In Q, on the other hand, our Lord, unlike St. John, 


1 The Lord’s Prayer does not belong to those passages which 
can almost certainly be claimed for Q; if, however, in a shorter 
form (vide section 27) it belonged to Q, it cannot have taken its 
origin from the single clause of St. Mark xi. 25, which corresponds 
to the so-called fifth petition. This clause says absolutely nothing 
about the content of the prayer, and is thus related in form not 
to St. Matt. vi. 12, but to the saying in St. Matt. v. 23, 24 (which, 
however, is more ancient in form). Yet it of course confirms 
the genuine character of the so-called fifth petition as it is found 
in St. Matthew (vide infra for a more detailed discussion). 


Q AND ST. MARK 201 


shows not the reverse but, even in the very begin- 
ning of His ministry, the obverse of the Kingdom 
of God; with it He entices men, He proclaims it 
as good tidings of great joy. He begins not with 
a stern warning to the whole Jewish nation but with 
blessing to His disciples.” 

Here we must first object that St. Matthew 
at all events did not regard the Sermon on the 
Mount: as a detailed substitute for St. Mark i. 15, 
seeing that he himself has given us in a passage 
preceding the Sermon on the Mount the words 
(iv. 17): ἀπὸ τότε ἤρξατο ὁ ᾽Ιησοῦς κηρύσσειν καὶ 
λέγειν᾽ μετανοεῖτε' ἤγγικεν γὰρ ἡ βασιλεία τῶν 
οὐρανῶν. Still less can we speak of such an inter- 
pretation of Q by St. Luke, seeing that he has 
assigned these passages of Q to a much later posi- 
tion in his gospel, indeed has distributed them 
throughout his work. And next, even according 
to Wellhausen, St. Mark i. 15 contains a flagrant 
hysteron-preteron from which St. Matthew and 
St. Luke, and therefore Q, are free; for St. Mark 
writes: “Jesus came into Galilee and preached the 
Gospel of God, saying, the time is fulfilled and the 
Kingdom of God is at hand; repent ye, and believe the 
Gospel.” When estimating the full meaning of this 
saying it does not do to pass by the mention of the 
“Gospel.” But if we take this into consideration, 
then the whole question presents a quite different 
appearance from that given it by Wellhausen in 
his representation of the contents of the verse in 
St. Mark. St. Mark also has from the very begin- 
ning taken up the “message of joy” into the theme 


202 THE SAYINGS OF JESUS 


of our Lord’s message; he also shows at the very 
first the “obverse” of this message, and indeed in 
a much more secondary form than is ever found 
in Q,' where the word “ Gospel” never occurs. But 
it seems to me a most extraordinary proceeding 
to set the whole Sermon on the Mount, as Q has 
given it, side by side with the short sentence of 
St. Mark i. 15. The “gospel” in Q signifies the 
Beatitudes *—in fact, it is the proclamation which 
appears in Q, section 14: “Tell John what ye 
hear and see: The blind receive their sight, the 
lame walk . . . the poor receive good tidings.” 
Why should not Q be justified in setting this 
message of good tidings in the forefront in contrast 
to the message of the Baptist? seeing, moreover, 
that its historical character cannot be disputed. 
And even if this preaching of good tidings was in 
reality more deeply set in the framework of the 
stern summons to repentance than appears in Q, 
why need we therefore regard the attractive side 
of the message as something especially secondary ἢ 
Again, is not the whole Sermon on the Mount 
together with the Beatitudes also a most powerful 
summons to repentance? How indeed are we to 
conceive of our Lord’s preaching of repentance? 
It could not have consisted simply in the repetition 
of the word “repent,” it must have pictured in 
glowing colours the blessedness of conversion and 

1 Wellhausen’s discussion of the signifivance of the word 
“Gospel” in St. Mark seems to me correct. St. Mark means by 
the word much the same as St. Paul. 


2 Here, therefore, the difference from St. Mark is as great as it 
possibly can be. 


Q AND ST. MARK 203 


of the new life! And this is just what we find 
in the Sermon on the Mount.t 

But a second fault is detected in this sermon: it 
must be regarded as a sermon addressed to the 
Christian community—.e. it presupposes the union of 
Christians in a distinct and compact society. This is, 
in my opinion, true of St. Matthew but not of Q. 
According to St. Matthew and St. Luke the Sermon 
on the Mount was spoken to the disciples (in the 
presence of the people); it was therefore so given in 
Q. Now it is true that, if we stretch Q upon the 
Procrustes’ bed of chronology, a discourse to the 
disciples occupies a strange position here at the 
beginning; but, in the first place, we do not know 
whether in Q something may not have preceded the 
Sermon on the Mount, and secondly, chronological 
tests ought not to be applied to ῷ. Q of course did 
not begin with the end but with the beginning, nor 
did it conclude with the beginning but with the 
discourses on the Second Coming; apart from this, 
however, chronology has no further influence upon 
Q, which is simply a heterogeneous collection of dis- 
courses and sayings, for the most part bound together 
in groups. If Q was a compilation of the sayings of 
our Lord, made with the aim of giving authorita- 
tive teaching (and that principally ethical), it is not 
strange that this great discourse to the disciples was 
set in the forefront as being the most important of ail. 
_ Certainly the Christian reader was intended to say to 


1 There is no want of sternness either in the Sermon on the 
Mount or elsewhere in Q; the “μακάριος stands in contrast to 
fearful warnings. 


204 THE SAYINGS OF JESUS 


himself: « All the promises and commandments here 
addressed to the disciples apply to thyself,” but it 
does not necessarily follow that the compiler has 
coloured his reproduction of the sayings of our Lord 
with a view to contemporary readers. Taking first 
only the sections of Q that are certainly genuine, 
where is such colouring to be found in the Beatitudes 
(section 3) in the saying concerning the blow upon 
the cheek and the cloak that is taken (4), in the 
direction to give to him that asks (5), in the com- 
mand to love one’s enemies (6), in the Golden Rule 
(7), in the prohibition of judging and the similitudes 
of the Mote and the Beam (8), the Good and 
Corrupt Tree (11), and the House upon the Rock 
and upon the Sand (12)? But, object Wellhausen 
and others, in the last Beatitude mention is made 
of persecutions which are also implied in the saying 
concerning love to one’s enemies. Here we come to 
a question of principle. In modern criticism of the 
Gospel narrative, it constantly happens that every- 
thing which can possibly be a hysteron-proteron 
is at once pronounced to be such with absolute 
certainty. ‘This seems to me to be a form of criti- 
cal conscientiousness which leads to critical narrow- 
mindedness. Of course there are numbers of instances 
of hysteron-proteron in the gospels—the merest 
suggestion of practical aim or purpose leads to a 
hysteron-proteron, and the gospels follow practical 
aims—yet it by no means follows therefrom that 
saying after saying must have been coloured and 
corrected in accordance with the circumstances of 
later times. Very often the saying receives its de- 


Q AND ST. MARK 205 


sired practical significance from the very context in 
which it is set without any change from the hand of 
the editor. Must it be that Jesus could not have 
said to His disciples, «Blessed are ye, when men 
revile you, and persecute you, and say all manner of 
evil against you falsely”? Surely even in the life- 
time of Jesus the disciples must have experienced 
such treatment again and again, and in the most 
varied forms; and it seems quite impossible that He 
should not have spoken about it. I confess that I 
cannot understand the objections that are usually 
made to such sayings, and in their removal, as a 
matter of principle, from the genuine sayings of our 
Lord, I discern a most serious error.1 By this method 
of destructive analysis we are left at last with only 
the critic himself; for, considering the likeness which 
naturally existed between the circumstances of the first 
disciples and of the later community, it is possible 
with very little trouble to object to everything as 
hysteron-proteron. Again, in reference to the per- 
secutions which the Sermon on the Mount has in 
view, it is to be noticed that we do not read, “So 
also have they persecuted me,” but “So persecuted 
they the prophets which were before you.” 

In Q, sections 3-8, 11, 12, nothing is to be found 
which must be assigned to secondary tradition. How 
does it stand with those sections of the Sermon on 
the Mount which can only with probability be 
assigned to Q? ‘The direction, « Ask, and it shall 


1 It is another question whether these sayings in certain cases 
are not coloured by the circumstances of later times—this seems 
to me, of course, certain. 


206 THE SAYINGS OF JESUS 


be given you,” together with the similitudes of the 
Bread and the Fish (section 28), the Light and the 
Bushel (31), the saying concerning the eye as the 
light of the body (32), the great discourse concerning 
anxiety (35), the warning against laying up treasure 
on earth (36), the Adversary and the Judge (39), 
the Strait gate and the Narrow way (41), the Salt 
that had lost its savour (47), the warning against 
serving two masters (49), the word concerning the 
permanent obligation of the Law (51), the saying con- 
cerning divorce (52), and lastly, the Lord’s Prayer 
(27), still remain to be considered.” In section 28 there 
is nothing that can be objected to as secondary; it 
is, however, well worth noticing that the disciples 
also are reckoned among the πονηροί. We have 
already discussed (pp. 196 ff.) sections 31, 47, and 52. 
In sections 32, 35, 36, 39, 49, even the sharpest eye 
will discover nothing that Jesus could not have said. 
But on section 41 Wellhausen remarks: “The 
eschatological colouring in St. Luke disappears in 
St. Matthew here, just as it does in vi. 19. The 
strait gate is presupposed as something known, for it 
is the needle’s eye of St. Mark x. 25, as we shall see 
in St. Luke. At a still later time Jesus Himself has 
become the Door (St. John x.). From the ¢ one gate’ 
St. Matthew passes on to the ‘two ways,’ leaving, 


1 Note the threat with which it concludes, 

2 Perhaps also the word concerning the leaders of the blind 
(section 9), and the saying that the disciple is not above his 
master (10). St. Luke has both sayings in his Sermon on the 
Plain ; St. Matthew has the first in chap. xv., the second in the 
charge to the disciples in chap. x, (this may have been its original 
position). 


ῳ AND ST. MARK 207 


however, the ‘gate’ in the singular and reserving it for 
the ‘narrow way ’—if Lachmann’s reading of vii. 13, 
which I have followed in my translation, is correct. 
The favourite Jewish metaphor of the ‘two ways’ is 
not derived from some such foreign source as the Greek 
legend of Hercules, but from Ps. i. 6, and originally 
from Jer. xxi. 8.) I gladly agree with the last remark, 
and am only sorry that there is in these days need to 
make it; but I cannot follow Wellhausen in what 
precedes. I can neither hold the text of St. Luke for 
the more original (vide supra, pp. 67 f.), nor does: 
it seem to me permissible to bring in the «needle’s 
eye” here. The “gate” and the “way” need, in 
my opinion, no interpretation: every one must at 
once understand what they mean, seeing especially 
that they are sufficiently explained by «the many” 
and «the few.” The eschatological colouring is, 
moreover, clear enough in the version of Q (St. 
Matthew), and nothing secondary can be found in 
the simile that is used. 

In the saying of section 51 concerning the per- 
manent obligation of the Law, Q has given expres- 
sion to our Lord’s attitude towards the Law. We 
may not interpret this saying as pointing to an 
ultimate abolition of the Law, for the emphasis 
does not lie upon this point—on the contrary, the 
meaning is that the Law abides as long as heaven 
and earth abide. ‘There is no ground for disputing 
that this was really what our Lord meant; and yet 
in St. Mark no such saying is to be found—on the 
contrary, it is written in St. Mark xiii. 30: « Heaven 
and earth shall pass away, but My words shall not 


208 THE SAYINGS OF JESUS 


pass away.” If it is proposed to bring this saying 
into comparison with the saying in Q—and it is 
almost impossible to avoid doing so—there can then 
be no doubt where the secondary traits are to be 
found. 

There still remains the Lord’s Prayer." Whether 
it ever stood in Q is, as we have already shown, ques- 
tionable, and its original form is a matter of contro- 
versy. If we follow the short form which we have 
given above, the character of a common prayer, and 
in a certain sense of a stereotyped prayer, still re- 
mains. But it is far too hasty a proceeding because 
of this to regard the tradition as secondary. Even 
according to St. Mark our Lord directs His disciples 
to pray, and I doubt whether in the East a prophet 
or teacher has ever given directions concerning prayer 
without giving a pattern prayer. Wellhausen re- 
marks: «Jesus could not give to His disciples a 
stereotyped form for congregational prayer, because 
they did not yet form a congregation ” (« Einl.,” 5. 87). 
But does it follow that the Lord’s Prayer is a con- 
gregational prayer because it is a common prayer? 
and did there not exist among the companions of our 
Lord a close bond of discipleship which even during 
his lifetime united them in a common life? Our 
knowledge of the nature of the common fellowship that 
existed in this circle of disciples must be far more 


1 The sayings concerning the leaders of the blind, and that the 
disciple is not above his master and must expect no other fortune 
than he (sections 9, 10), arouse no justifiable suspicion. A sceptic 
will suspect a hysteron-proteron in the second saying—on the 
presupposition that our Lord could have said nothing which might 
also refer to the circumstances of a later time. 


ῳ AND ST. MARK 209 


detailed before we can have the least justification for 
asserting the impossibility of a prayer being given 
them by our Lord. It may, of course, be admitted 
that the Lord’s Prayer in the form given in St. 
Matthew, and indeed even in St. Luke, is liturgical in 
character, and is accordingly a congregational prayer ; 
but this does not hold good of the short form. This 
form, in my opinion, presents nothing that can be 
objected to in point of genuineness. 

Judged in detail and as a whole, all that is pre- 
sented as teaching of our Lord in the Sermon on the 
Mount bears the stamp of unalloyed genuineness. It 
is astonishing that at a time when St. Paul was 
actively engaged in his mission, and when the pro- 
blem of apologetics and the controversy concerning 
the Law were burning questions, the teaching of our 
Lord should have been still so clearly and distinctly 
preserved in the memory of Christians in the simple 
force of its essentially ethical character. 


The didascalia given in the Sermon on the Mount 
were immediately followed in Q by the story of the 
Centurion at Capernaum (section 13). How little the 
compiler of Q cared for chronology is seen from the 
words in which our Lord here looks back upon a 
fairly long period of ministry. Wellhausen (« Matt.,” 
s. 36) is of opinion that Q here, in strong contrast to 
St. Mark, lays the greatest emphasis upon the miracle 
wrought simply by a word and at a distance, and, 
moreover, he thinks that the centurion may be a 
duplicate of Jairus. In regard to the latter point, 
the stories seem to me far too different to allow 

o 


210 THE SAYINGS OF JESUS 


of the experiment of deriving one from the other; 
but Wellhausen’s first assertion demands detailed 
examination.! 

(1) When we consider the import of this section in 
the context of Q, we cannot but wonder that it stands 
in Ὁ at all if its point lies in the miracle. On this 
supposition it falls out of the sphere of Q, which is 
elsewhere a compilation of discourses.’ 

(2) If one looks more closely one sees that the 
point of the narrative does not lie in the miracle 
of healing, but in the great faith of the heathen 
centurion (just as in the story of the Canaanitish 
woman) in“the unlimited power of our Lord; for it 
is the word of our Lord testifying to this faith, not 
the word of healing, which forms the climax of the 
narrative. The word of healing comes m haltingly at 
the close in St. Matthew, and is not even mentioned m 
St. Luke. 

(3) This in itself is decisive enough, but we may 
perhaps proceed a step further. We have above 
(p. 77) left the question open as to the conclusion 
of this section in Q. St. Matthew concludes it much 
in the same way as the story of the Canaanitish 
woman: καὶ εἶπεν ὁ ᾿Ϊησοὺς τῷ ἑκατονταρχῇῃ 
[ὕπαγε]. ὡς ἐπίστευσας γενηθήτω σοι" καὶ ἰάθη ὁ παῖς 
ἐν τῇ ὥρᾳ ἐκείνῃ. St. Luke writes quite summarily 
(and with three participles, thus in his own style): 
καὶ ὑποστρέψαντες εἰς τὸν οἶκον of πεμφθέντες εὗρον 

1 We may at the same time question whether St. Mark really 
would have rejected a miracle wrought at a distance (vide the 
Canaanitish woman). 


2 In the Beelzebub section the miracle only gives the occasion 
of a long and most significant discourse of our Lord, 


Q AND ST. MARK 211 


τὸν δοῦλον ὑγιαίνοντα. Not a single word in these two 
conclusions ts identical. 'This is very strange. What 
then may we suppose was the conclusion of Q? We 
cannot tell. Since this is so, it seems to me to be not 
too bold an hypothesis to assume that in Q either 
nothing at all was said about the cure, or that in this 
source there stood something quite different from 
what we read in St. Matthew and St. Luke. Either 
alternative is possible, and not improbable ;* it is at 
all events certain that the concluding verse, both in 
St. Matthew and also in St. Luke, is suspicious. 
Neither is it surprising that they have both inde- 
pendently of one another given the story the con- 
clusion which we now read. 

If the point of this passage lies in a short,saying 
of our Lord, in which He testifies to the receptivity 
of a Gentile, and if the miraculous cure takes a 
secondary place, having been either not narrated at 
all or described in some other form, then there is 
nothing strange in the fact that the narrative occurs 
in Q,? nor can it be described as containing tradition 
which is secondary to that of St. Mark. The Baptist 
had already proclaimed in warning tones that God 
could raise up from the stones children to Abraham, 
and the story of the Canaanitish woman (St. Mark) 
affords an important parallel to our section. 


1 In the case of the Canaanitish woman, our Lord also shows 
reluctance in performing the cure. 

2 Wernle (‘‘Synoptische Frage,” 5. 232) thinks that we are 
forced to conclude that the section was interpolated in Q at a 
later time, seeing that it conflicts with the Judaistic tendency of 
Q; but Q does not bear the traces of a Judaism which would not 
allow the expression of such appreciation of faith in a Gentile. 


212 THE SAYINGS OF JESUS 


The passages in the gospels referring to the sending 
forth of the disciples contain much tradition of a 
secondary character, but it does not therefore follow 
that the event itself is impossible or improbable how- 
ever certain it is that we have here an intermixture 
of later elements. Wellhausen says (« Mark.,” 5. 46, on 
St. Mark vi. 7 ff.): «“'The twelve only make an ex- 
periment, and afterwards are just as dependent and 
passive as before, although the experiment is a success. 
In fact, Jesus did not institute experimental missions 
as an exercise for His seminary.” But the fact of the 
sending forth of the disciples itself is too strongly 
attested by the twofold tradition in St. Mark and Q to 
allow of its being summarily rejected, nor is it in itself 
improbable that our Lord thought that, in the short 
space of time allowed Him, He must provide for the 
widest possible circulation of His message of the near 
approach of the Kingdom. Yet we are not here con- 
cerned with the fact itself; the question for us is only 
the relationship of the account in Q to the account in 
St. Mark. They are, partly in subject-matter, partly 
almost verbally, identical, and are combined together 
in St. Matthew, but in St. Luke (chaps. ix. and x.) 
they are kept apart from one another. In the 
parallel sections where the text of Q can no longer be 
ascertained with certainty (therefore they are included 
in brackets in our construction of the text), the chief 
difference is that St. Mark allows a staff and sandals, 
while Q does not. The version of St. Mark seems to 
me to reflect a relaxation which had arisen in actual 
practice. In Q the missionary charge to the disciples 
was preceded by the story of two men, of whom one 


Q AND ST. MARK 213 


offered himself as a disciple and the other wished first 
to bury his father (section 17). It is related for the 
sake of the two sayings of our Lord that it contains, 
in the former of which the expression “Son of Man” 
is found for the first time in Q. The sayings bear 
the stamp of perfect genuineness. Then followed 
(section 18) the saying concerning the greatness of the 
harvest and the paucity of labourers. Wellhausen 
(« Matt.,” 5. 44) remarks: «'The harvest elsewhere is 
the end of the world, and the reapers are the angels. 
If by the lord of the harvest we must understand that 
God is signified, then the prayer does not quite corre- 
spond with the active intervention of Jesus who, in 
what follows, Himself sends forth the reapers.” This 
objection has some weight—however, it does not seem 
to me to be decisive against the originality of the 
tradition: the simile of the harvest can well have 
been variously applied by our Lord Himself.—In the 
missionary charge to the disciples there would be a 
most important difference between St. Mark and Q 
if it were true that the former speaks only of the 
private mission in houses, while Q speaks also of the 
mission in cities. Wellhausen (« Luk.,” 5. 49) says: 
«The public mission in the cities is later than the 
secret mission in the house, just as the reception into 
the city is later than that into the house. Accord- 
ingly St. Mark, who speaks only of the house, has the 
priority over Q; for it is not doubtful, and is indeed 
correctly recognised by St. Matthew, that St. Mark 
vi. 7 ff. and St. Luke x. 1 ff. are variants which must 
be compared together.” But in Q the mission to the 
cities did not stand in the place of the mission in the 


214 THE SAYINGS OF JESUS 


house, both stood together side by side. ‘This is not re- 
dundant, nor is it in the strictest sense tautologous. The 
horizon of our Lord’s missionary outlook included cities 
as well as households, vide the Woe against Chorazin, 
Bethsaida, and Capernaum. We cannot therefore see 
why directions concerning the mission in cities should 
be later in date than those concerning the mission in 
the houses; in practice, as is shown by the most 
ancient records, both phases of the mission coincided 
in point of time. But the whole presupposition that 
the mission in the cities is wanting in St. Mark is 
to me very questionable. According to Wellhausen 
there is in St. Mark vi. 10, 11, no difference between 
οἰκία and τόπος; this however is not, in my opinion, the 
interpretation that first suggests itself, rather τόπος; 
as usual, signifies “city,” but the mission in the city and 
in the house are conceived as one and the same; and 
thus no real difference can be discovered here between 
St. Mark and Q.—The warning in Q, that it would 
be more tolerable for Sodom in the Judgment than 
for the perverse cities (section 22), presents no diffi- 
culty.—I pass by section 24 (vide supra).—lIn section 
34° Q proclaims that words spoken against the Son of 
Man will be forgiven; this is wanting in St. Mark. 
This fact is in favour of the priority of Q; Well- 
hausen’s argument to the contrary (“ Matt.,” 5. 62 f.) is 
not convincing. In section 34*, which otherwise shows 
all the signs of the earliest tradition, it is possible 
that the duty of confession of the person of Jesus 
may be a secondary trait; but it is not necessary to 
suppose this, and the promise: “I will acknowledge 
Him in the presence of the angels of God” (thus at 


Q AND ST. MARK 215 


the Judgment), sounds very primitive. The same 
must be said of section 38: it is possible to regard 
it as a vaticinium ex eventu ; but why might not our 
Lord foretell the result of His preaching, seeing that 
other prophets have made similar predictions? He 
must have seen how that even in His lifetime His 
preaching had brought division into families and had 
separated those who were nearest to one another. I 
pass by the closely related section 45, because it is not 
quite certain that it belongs to Q.—In section 46 
(Bearing the cross) we have probably a hysteron- 
proteron,! but certainly a primitive one. The saying 
concerning the finding and losing of the soul (section 
4) presents no difficulty. 

These passages which we have here discussed briefly 
have some other parallels in our second gospel, apart 
from St. Mark vi. 7-11. St. Mark also writes, 
parallel to section 945 (iv. 22): οὐ γάρ ἐστιν κρυπτόν, 
ἐὰν μὴ ἵνα φανερωθῃ" οὐδὲ ἐγένετο ἀπόκρυφον, ἀλλ᾽ ἵνα 
ἔλθῃ εἰς φανερόν (this looks like a translation-variant 
of an identical Semitic text), again parallel to section 
46 (viii. 34): εἴ τις θέλει ὀπίσω μου ἐλθεῖν, ἀπαρνη- 
σάσθω ἑαυτὸν καὶ ἀράτω τὸν σταυρὸν αὐτοῦ καὶ ἀκολου- 
θείπω μοι, again parallel to section 57 (viii. 35): ὃς 
ἐὰν θέλῃ THY ψυχὴν σῶσαι, ἀπολέσει αὐτήν' ὃς δ᾽ ἂν 


1 The hypothesis of a reference to the custom that one con- 
demned to be crucified was compelled to bear the transverse beam 
of his cross is, of course, not satisfactory. On the other hand, we 
may perhaps conjecture, as Reinach has lately pointed out again, 
that the crucifixion of the righteous man, in accordance with the 
well-known passage in Plato and Ps. xxii., had become a typical 
and widely spread conception. Yet much is still wanting to 
establish this hypothesis, 


216 THE SAYINGS OF JESUS 


ἀπολέσει τὴν ψυχὴν αὐτοῦ ἕνεκεν ἐμοῦ Kal τοῦ 
εὐαγγελίου, σώσει αὐτήν, lastly, parallel to section 
24. νοὺ this saying did not perhaps occur in Q at all 
—(ix. 87): ὃς ἂν ἐμὲ δέχηται, οὐκ ἐμὲ δέχεται ἀλλὰ 
τὸν ἀποστείλαντά pe. Nowhere here does Q show 
itself secondary to St. Mark, indeed the contrary is 
the case; for the anachronistic addition, ἕνεκεν ἐμοῦ 
καὶ τοῦ εὐαγγελίου; is foreign to Q.—Hence in these 
commandments to the disciples Q is neither dependent 
upon St. Mark nor secondary when compared with 
that gospel. It is not surprising that identical sayings 
should be found here and in St. Mark; for these 
directions of our Lord certainly stood in the forefront 
of tradition, and could not but be received into every 
compilation thereof. 


There now follows the great discourse concerning 
the Baptist (sections 14, 15), occasioned by the ques- 
tion brought by a deputation of St. John’s disciples ; 
to this there is no parallel in St. Mark. The story, 
together with the discourse, is so important, and 
bears at the same time so clearly the stamp of 
genuineness—in the first place because of the candid 
admission of the doubt of St. John; then because our 
Lord’s ministry of healing appears as His characteristic 
work ! (thus involving the near approach of the King- 
dom of God); and lastly, because, together with a 
most valuable account of the Baptist, we have here 
from the mouth of our Lord an appreciation of his 
person and mission. Only the words, ὁ δὲ μικρότερος 

1 The considerations which Wellhausen advances in order to 


prove the probability that the words are to be understood allegori- 
cally, do not seem to me to have much force. 


Q AND ST. MARK Q17 


ἐν τῇ βασιλείᾳ τοῦ θεοῦ μείζων αὐτοῦ ἐστιν, look like 
a hysteron-proteron (from the standpoint of the 
Christian community); whether they are really so 
cannot be ascertained, for we do not know how far 
our Lord went in this direction. In St. Matthew it 
is indeed very probable that βασιλεία τοῦ θεοῦ has 
much the same significance as ἐκκλησία, but can we 
say the same of Q? Now follows the passage with 
the wonderful comparison between children at play 
and the nation which advanced such peevish claims 
upon its leaders. Wellhausen presses the double ἦλθεν 
in section 15, and argues: “'The tenses for John and 
Jesus are exactly the same. If then John here be- 
longs to the past, so also does Jesus.” If this kind 
of argument is intended to prove that the discourse 
belongs to a later time than that of our Lord, I do 
not understand it. Our Lord’s ministry had already 
lasted a considerable time, and His life (in contrast 
to that of St. John) was in the full view of the public 
eye. Why then could He not have spoken as He 
speaks here? or, rather, in what other way would 
Wellhausen have Him speak? This discourse also, in 
my opinion, bears both as a whole and in detail the 
stamp of originality. There is nothing that can be 
said against it, except that it may possibly be a hysteron- 
proteron, but that is no objection at all; the less so 
seeing that the words “ ἰδοὺ ἄνθρωπος φάγος καὶ otvo- 
πότης " do not exactly suggest the prevalence here of 
later tradition. It is also a good sign that nothing 
is recorded concerning the result of the question of 
St. John, so that the Baptist is, as it were, left in a 
state of doubt. 


218 THE SAYINGS OF JESUS 


It is possible that section 23 (the Woe against the 
cities) now followed in Q. The « δυνάμεις αἱ γενόμεναι 
ἐν ὑμῖν" are what make the cities so inexcusable. It 
is the same idea upon which emphasis is laid in the 
answer to St. John in the preceding section (the acts 
of our Lord compel faith; if in spite of these He is 
rejected, the reason can only be hardness of heart); 
also the statement that Tyre and Sidon would have 
repented is to be compared with section 30. We 
thus perceive that these sections are closely bound 
together, so far as their subject-matter is concerned, 
by one and the same idea. 


The following section (25), the great thanksgiving 
to the Father, is at present regarded by many 
critics as altogether secondary, indeed as a Christian 
hymn. I cannot bring myself to agree with them, 
and I am glad to see that Schmiedel also judges 
otherwise («Das vierte Evangelium,” 1906, 5. 48 ff.). 
As to whether the section is genuine word for word, 
who is there that can assert this and who can prove 
it? But it can be shown that it contains concep- 
tions which fit in with our Lord’s genuine sphere of 
thought. We do not know when it was that these 
words of exulting joy were uttered. They stand 
in sharp contrast to the preceding section. Our 
Lord here thanks the Father that He has never- 
theless met with success—success for His message and 
in His teaching (for “« ταῦτα" can only mean this)— 
and that among the simple folk. The rejection 
on the part of the wise and prudent, and the rejec- 
tion of these prudent ones by our Lord, are traits 


οὐ 


Q AND ST. MARK 219 


which are certainly neither unhistorical nor abnormal 
(they find their echo in St. Paul’s first epistle to the 
Corinthians). If, however, “ ravra” signifies « know- 
ledge” or “ doctrine,” the meaning also of “πάντα 
is thus fixed—it signifies, as indeed we see from what 
follows, «the knowledge of God.” Wellhausen is 
correct in saying: “In this context there is no 
reference made to power but to knowledge, to insight 
into divine things, to the true nature of religion. 
All doctrine and all knowledge is with the Jews 
ς παράδοσις, the παράδοσις, however, of Jesus pro- 
ceeds directly from God, not from men.” Our Lord 
here uses the word « IIat#p”—most probably not 
“ratio jov”—just as in the introduction « πάτερ 
κύριε TOU οὐρανοῦ Kat τῆς γῆς." The absolute use of 
«the Father, the Son” is likewise found in St. Mark 
(xili. 32) and is accordingly no sign of the secondary 
character of Q as compared with St. Mark. The 
conclusion: «No man hath knowledge of the Father 
except the Son, and to whomsoever the Son will 
reveal Him,” says nothing about an “eternal” 
relationship between the Father and the Son, but 
simply expresses an historical fact. It does not 
lie beyond the line which is drawn in St. Matt. 
xii. 16, 17 (ὑμῶν μακάριοι οἱ ὀφθαλμοί, ὅτι βλέπουσιν 
κτλ.)» in St. Matt. xi. 9-11 (concerning the Baptist), 
and in St. Matt. xii. 38 ff. (a greater than 
Jonah and Solomon). The union in this exultant 
thanksgiving of elements of ecstatic elevation, of 
which individual examples can be found elsewhere, 
is no sign of secondariness—or is Jesus the only one 
to whom we may not ascribe ecstatic utterance such 


220. THE SAYINGS OF JESUS 


as one expects from every great prophet? The 
saying thus contains nothing that can be objected 
to, and may therefore be used as one of the 
most important sources of our knowledge of the 
personality of our Lord. In St. Mark we find 
parallels to separate traits of the saying, but no 
parallel to the whole; this evangelist with his 
restless and hasty temperament was incapable of 
reproducing such an utterance.! 


The Beelzebub section (29), which is given not 
for the sake of the miracle of healing but of the 
discourse, has a parallel in St. Mark; in St. Matthew 
and St. Luke the Markan text is so intermingled 
with Q that one can only make certain of remnants 
of the latter source.2 There is an inclination to 
discover secondary traits in Q in the clause: ἄρα 
ἔφθασεν ἐφ᾽ ὑμᾶς αὶ βασιλεία τοῦ θεοῦ, and in the 
saying: ὁ μὴ @yv μετ᾽ ἐμοῦ κατ᾽ ἐμοῦ ἐστιν, καὶ ὁ 
μὴ συνάγων μετ᾽ ἐμοῦ σκορπίζει; for in the former 
the Kingdom is described as already present; and 
in the latter there is a proclamation of the dogma 
“extra ecclesiam nulla salus,” so that it is less 
original than St. Mark ix. 40 («He who is not 


1 For further detail vide Excursus I.—The continuation of 
this saying in St. Matt. (xi. 28-30) is regarded by many critics 
as its real continuation. But if it is so, and if it stood in Q, why 
has St. Luke omitted it? It was just what would have appealed 
to him. Besides, its connection with verses 25-27 is rather super- 
ficial than essential. The question of its genuineness is not 
affected by the decision that it is independent of the preceding 
verses. ; 

? This is especially so at the beginning. 


Q AND ST. MARK 221 


against you is for you”?). But St. Mark also says, 
if indeed only indirectly (iii. 27), that the kingdom 
of Satan is drawing to its close, because the « strong 
man” is now bound; the direct statement ought 
not to be treated in contrast as a later develop- 
ment of the thought. In regard to the following 
saying, no one has yet thoroughly ascertained its 
connection with its context in St. Matthew and 
St. Luke; it is therefore still less possible to say 
what was intended by the saying in Q. I do not see 
why we must suppose that the saying implies « extra 
ecclesiam nulla salus.” Even if, as is probable, 
συνάγειν and σκορπίζειν are to be interpreted in 
accordance with the metaphor of a flock (συνάγειν 
is also used of grain [section 1] in the discourse 
of the Baptist), yet these are well-known prophetic 
termini technict for the leading of Israel to God 
and their alienation from Him, into which we have 
no right without special reasons to read an ecclesias- 
tical significance, even if St. Matthew thus understood 
them. Moreover, our Lord certainly more than 
once spoke of His own συνάγειν. We had better 
neglect altogether a comparison of this saying with the 
seemingly contradictory saying of St. Mark ix. 40 
(St. Luke has both sayings); for these sayings occur 
in different contexts and could both of them have 
been quite well spoken by our Lord. If, however, 
it is thought that we must not desert the principle 
of the critical school, which in such cases aims at 
unification, then we may well ask whether the more 
original saying is not the one which is exclusive 


1 According to D, The Greek codices have the first person. 


222 THE SAYINGS OF JESUS 


and which does not transfer to the disciples the pre- 
rogative of Jesus. Arguments at least can be brought 
forward on either side, hence: “non liquet”! Lastly, 
in the passage which is appended in Q, the ironical 
criticism of the results of exorcisms is so paradoxical, 
so singular, and without all « Gospel” significance, 
that no one will dispute its originality. 

The section concerning the sign of Jonah (30), if 
we only remove the artful interpolation in St. Matthew, 
is of peculiar simplicity and force. This evil and 
adulterous generation must repent, and if in frivolity 
it seeks for signs, it receives only the preacher of re- 
pentance, as did the Ninevites—yet a greater than 
Jonah; nevertheless it abides unrepentant. What 
objection can one wish to make against the genuine- 
ness of this discourse ὃ ὦ 

The sections which now follow, 33, 43 (the Woe 
against the Pharisees and the announcement of judg- 
ment upon Jerusalem), 56 (the warning against 
false Messiahs; the discourse concerning the Parousia), 
58 (Whosoever hath, to him shall be given), 37 (The 
coming of the Son of Man as a thief in the night; 
the faithful and unfaithful steward), and 59 (The 
disciples will judge the twelve tribes), so far as we 
can judge, formed the conclusion of Q.? Section 58 

1 The story of the refusal of the demand for a sign also stands 
in St. Mark (viii. 11 f.), but in an entirely independent form, which 
cannot have been the source of Q. St. Mark says nothing of the 
sign of Jonah in the reply with which the demand was dismissed 
—a trait which with its bitter irony cannot have been invented. 
In St. Matthew it is transformed, because in its summary plainness 
it seemed to the evangelist insufficient and unsuitable. 


2 And also the two parables of the Great Supper and of the 
Talents, if they really stood in Q (vide supra, pp. 119 ff.). 


Q@ AND ST. MARK 223 


is also found in St. Mark (iv. 25). Sections 33, 34, 
have been discussed above (pp. 103 ff., 168 ff.). The 
flagrant anachronism, which Wellhausen thinks must 
be accepted in the case of Zacharias, is in all probability 
not to be laid to the charge of Q. Sections 33, 43, 
are already eschatological in character; the same is 
true of 56, 37, 58, 59. The warning against false 
Messiahs in section 56 may be an anachronism ; but 
this does not mean that it ἐδ one. Otherwise they all 
bear the stamp of genuineness, and stand in brilhant 
contrast to the detailed eschatological discourses in St. 
Mark, 'The promise to the Twelve that they would 
rule Israel after the Parousia, most clearly shows the 
Jewish horizon. Q has transmitted no discourses 
concerning the Passion. 


There now remain only the isolated sayings—26, 
40, 42, 44, 48, 50, 53, 54,55. We can no longer dis- 
cover their position in Q. If in St. Matthew section 
26 stands in place of St. Mark iv. 13 (reproach of 
the disciples), this implies nothing for Q, seeing that 
St. Luke has the saying in a quite different place 
(x. 23°, 24). The saying itself shows no trace of 
later colouring, neither do the three parables of the 
Mustard Seed, the Leaven, and the Lost Sheep in 
sections 40 and 48; they give rather the impression 
of exquisite originality..—The saying that the Gentiles 
would sit at meat with the Patriarchs in the Kingdom 


1 Vide Jiilicher “Gleichnisse II.” 5. 569 ff., 314 ff.—The parable 
of the Mustard Seed, which also stands in St. Mark (iv. 30-32), 
is somewhat shorter and more concise in Q than in the second 
gospel, 


224 THE SAYINGS OF JESUS 


of God, while the sons of the Kingdom would be cast 
out (section 42), presents a thought similar to that of 
the Baptist’s warning. 'The sympathy with the Gen- 
tiles does not pass beyond the bounds which the 
prophets of the Old Testament had already reached ; 
the figure of the feast is genuinely Jewish.—The 
saying concerning pride (section 44) is also found in 
St. Mark.—The statement concerning the position of 
the Law and the Prophets in the history of religion 
(section 50), and the saying combined with it wherein 
the epoch “from John until now” is marked off, 
arouse the suspicion of later composition; but the 
three stages, “ Prophets, John, Jesus,” are also dis- 
tinguished in section 14, and there the genuineness 
of the distinction can scarcely be disputed. Here 
again we have no means of judging with certainty 
what our Lord could say and could not say, strange 
though this marking off of a period “from the days 
of John until now” may seem (the saying must have 
been spoken after the death of the Baptist, and also 
stands in St. Luke at a very much later point than 
section 14). Besides, it is difficult to ascertain the 
wording and the significance of the saying. Does it 
mean that the Prophets and the Law lasted until 
John, or that they prophesied until John? Has 
“they lasted” the same signification as “they were 
in force,” or as “no more new prophets appeared ” ὃ 
What is meant by « The Kingdom of God is taken by 
storm”? and who are those « who take it by storm ” ? 
The original character of the expression is a strong 
guarantee for the genuineness of the saying itself. No 
more can be said.—The short saying, “It is necessary 


Q AND ST. MARK 225 


that offences come, but woe unto the man through 
whom they come,” is wanting in clearness, because 
we do not know in what context it stood in@. Is 
Judas referred to (scarcely so), or has the saying a 
general significance >The twofold command in sec- 
tion 54, in which each half is quite independent of 
the other, is an excellent example of the way in which 
St. Matthew has made Q serve ends which are foreign 

to that source. Q said: (1) One ought to correct the 
sinning brother—by this means one may be able to 
save a brother; again, Q taught (2) that one ought 
without limitation to forgive personal injuries at the 
hand of a brother. St. Matthew has here introduced 
the community, and has established a rule of ecclesi- 
astical discipline. Cases of sin, injury, and wrong 
were certainly not of rare occurrence in the circle of 
the disciples, and there is no reason why our Lord 
should not have expressed Himself concerning their 
treatment. Besides, we have instances of the kind in 
St. Mark.—The last saying which remains is section 
55. St. Mark has also transmitted it (xi. 22, 23): 
ἔχετε πίστιν θεοῦ. ἀμὴν λέγω ὑμῖν, ὅτι ὃς ἂν εἴπῃ τῷ 
ὄρει τούτῳ" ἄρθητι καὶ βλήθητι εἰς τὴν θάλασσαν, καὶ 
μὴ διακριθῇ ἐν τῇ καρδίᾳ αὐτοῦ, ἀλλὰ πιστεύῃ, ὅτι 
ὃ λαλεῖ γίνεται, ἔσται αὐτῷ). No one can ever 
prove that this version of the saying is preferable 
to that of Q (ἐὰν ἔχητε πίστιν ὡς κόκκον σινάπεως, 
ἐρεῖτε τῷ ὄρει τούτῳ" μετάβα ἔνθεν ἐκεῖ, καὶ μεταβή- 
σεται). 


This comparison of Q and St. Mark, as well as our 
examination of the subject-matter of Q, have in no 
P 


226 THE SAYINGS OF JESUS 


instance led us to conclude that Q is dependent upon 
St. Mark, and scarcely ever to acknowledge that Q, 
from the historical point of view, is inferior to St. 
Mark; in several instances, indeed, they have con- 
vinced us of the superiority of the former to the 
latter. There exists, of course, a relationship between 
Q and St. Mark, even a literary relationship, but it 
is confined to only a few sections and is evidently 
indirect—i.e. both have received and delivered some 
tradition in the same fixed form, but as a rule in a 
different translation. 'The dependence of St. Mark 
upon Q—for if there exists a relationship of direct 
dependence between the two this would be the only 
possible hypothesis—is also difficult to establish; for 
this assumption is nowhere demanded, and the attitude 
of St. Mark towards Q would in this case be almost 
unintelligible. Whether St. Mark had knowledge of 
much that has been taken up into Q, whether, more- 
over, he betrays this knowledge in some passages of 
his work, whether behind St. Mark (and known to 
him) there did not lie compilations of sayings of our 
Lord that had strong points of similarity with Q, are 
different questions which might well be answered in 
the affirmative; but that this evangelist made use of 
Q, no one will be able to prove. The most striking 
instance of relationship between the two—the simi- 
larity in the order in the opening sections of each— 
need not be in any way a literary relationship, as 
we have already remarked, but is explained from 
the customary order of catechetical instruction in 
the apostolic epoch. The Galilean horizon, within 
which Q seems to move more exclusively than 


Q AND ST. MARK δα] 


St. Mark, must be simply accepted as an historical 
fact.t 


1 This definition of the relationship between Q and St. Mark 
agrees essentially with that of Holtzmann, Wernle, Bousset (in a 
review of Wellhausen’s Hinleitung in the ‘“‘ Theol. Rundschau’’), 
and of Jiilicher;, but Jiilicher (Hinleitung®, 5, 320 ff.) believes 
that he is compelled to make some important concessions to Well- 
hausen’s criticism. He finds that this scholar has shown that it 
is extremely probable that the edition of Q used by St. Matthew and 
St. Luke was posterior in time to St. Mark. In support of this 
theory, he adduces the story of the Temptation, of the centurion 
at Capernaum (healing at a distance, which it is implied pre- 
supposes a more developed craving for the miraculous than the 
simple stories of healing in St. Mark), the “undoubtedly later” 
version in Q of the saying: ‘‘ Whosoever is not with Me, &c.,’’ also 
of the saying concerning blasphemy, and of the saying concerning 
light. In these cases, however, he assumes no literary dependence. 
There is,.of course, nothing against St. Mark’s having sometimes 
given a tradition in a more original form than Q, but among the 
instances given—they have been already discussed above—I can 
recognise scarcely one of which this is true. The saying concern- 
ing blasphemy in Q, when compared with St. Mark, does not seem 
secondary ; the “light” in Q had no reference to the disciples (this 
reference was first introduced by St. Matthew); whether the two 
sayings, “He that is not with Me is against Me,” and ‘‘ He that 
is not against you is for you,” ought to be confronted with one 
another at all is doubtful, and even if they are so confronted, the 
decision as regards priority is uncertain; in other places, at all 
events, the latter trait counts as the more original, The pericope 
concerning the centurion has its point not in the healing at a 
distance but in the faith of the Gentile, and the story of the 
Temptation in St. Mark most probably presupposes a fuller de- 
scription and one which differed from that of Q. Jiilicher then 
(s. 321 f.) proceeds to sketch a conjectural history of the origin 
of Q, in which he holds a development by successive steps as 
probable; at a distinct moment in the history of this development 
the plan of St. Mark is supposed to have influenced Q; on the 
other hand, it seems natural, indeed quite necessary, to explain 
St. Mark’s neglect of so many important discourses of our Lord 
from the circumstance that a compilation of discourses was already 
in the hands of the faithful. ‘‘ Accordingly Q would be both older 


228 6 ΤῊΝ SAYINGS OF JESUS 


Chronological arrangement in detail should not be 
looked for in Q. Except in the introduction and in 
the collection of eschatological discourses at the close, 
the prevailing arrangement is an arrangement accord- 
ing to subject-matter, and probably even this does 
not hold good everywhere. The choice of material 
and its arrangement were determined by the needs of 
Christian teaching—more especially of ethical teach- 
ing—though by no means exclusively, for in these 
sayings and discourses the relation of Jesus to all 
powers in heaven and earth comes to expression. 
They are Λόγοι Iycov,' which give a clear impression 
of His message in all its manifold aspects. The 
ςς duvaues” are presupposed, but not narrated. Q in 
character occupies the mean position between an 
amorphous collection of sayings of our Lord and the 
definite literary form of the written gospels, and so 
prepared the way for the latter. Q could not have 
and younger than St. Mark; however, the common elements of 
St. Mark and Q are so slight in extent and in importance, that 
it is simply not worth while to take up again and again the hope- 
less task of knitting together a linen and a silken texture—both of 
which indeed are something far more than mere collections of 
separate threads.” I entirely agree with the last remark, also 
with the premise that Q grew by separate stages; but I consider 
it unnecessary to assume that St. Mark influenced Q at a definite 
moment in its development. Absolutely the only evidence for 
this hypothesis is found at the beginning of Q, and this is not 
sufficient. 

1 To characterise Q as a mixture of discourses and narratives 
would be incorrect. Apart from the story of the Temptation, 
which serves as a prelude, in the other six narratives the story 
serves only as an introduction to the discourse, ‘This is especially 
obvious in the story of the centurion, in the Testimony of our 


Lord concerning the Baptist, and in the Beelzebub section. Nor 
is it otherwise with the other three narratives (sections 17, 30, 54). 


CHARACTERISTICS OF 9 229 


first come into existence after the time that the 
gospel-type—sayings, miracles, and Passion, proof of 
Messiahship—had been created by St. Mark; for Q 
cannot possibly be regarded as a completion of St. 
Mark’s gospel, and the gospel-type, after it had once 
arisen, established itself with sovereign authority (com- 
pare the apocryphal with the canonical gospels). 

An inquiry into the character of the subject-matter 
of Q will confirm this verdict. I shall attempt in 
what follows to summarise the main characteristics 
of the contents of Q. 

The great sermons, which take up so much of the 
space and form the principal part of Q (corresponding 
to St. Matt. v.—vii., x.), comprise directions to the dis- 
ciples (first in presence of the people, then privately). 
Everywhere where the interests of Christological 
apology did not as yet preponderate, the interest in 
the commandments of Jesus stood in the foreground. 
We can see that this is so from the time of St. Paul 
to Justin, but we can trace it still further. Naturally 
the Christians set themselves in the place of the dis- 
ciples, and applied to themselves what was once said 
to these. And yet we find in Q very few traces of 
conscious or unconscious modification of the sayings. 
Ecclesiastical organisation and the Church, as St. 
Matthew knows them, do not appear in Q. The 
sayings apply to the individual even when they are 
addressed to a multitude. The controversy of Chris- 
tianity with Judaism as between two distinct religious 
principles, the opposition of the old and new precepts, 
are wanting; only in reference to divorce does Jesus 
go beyond the Law. Elsewhere it is said that the 


490 THE SAYINGS OF JESUS 


Law abides so long as heaven and earth remain.! 
The Jewish horizon and Jewish sentiment are also 
shown in the fact that the bliss of the Kingdom of 
God is pictured ‘as a sitting at meat with Abraham, 
Isaac, and Jacob, and in the promise to the apostles 
that they should rule the twelve tribes of Israel. But 
the opposition to the present generation in Israel, to 
the «evil and adulterous generation,” which would 
bend the men of God to its will, and the conflict 
against its spiritual rulers the Pharisees, are nowhere 
more sharply brought out than in this source. The 
children of the Kingdom will be cast out; weeping 
and gnashing of teeth await them; it will be more 
tolerable for Sodom and Gomorrha than for Chorazin, 
Bethsaida, and Capernaum, and a fearful Woe is 
launched against the Pharisees. ‘The expression of 
friendliness towards the Gentiles—who in place of 
the children of the Kingdom will feast with Abraham 
—fits without difficulty into the picture, or rather 
offers no greater difficulty than earlier utterances of 
a similar purport found in the Prophets. ‘The same 
remarks apply to the emphasis laid upon the faith of 
the Gentile centurion. ‘The commandments in detail, 
though they are so different and so manifold, never- 
theless breathe one and the same spirit—a spirit one 
in its austere assertion of the unique claim of good- 
ness, in its recognition of the absolute sovereignty of 
Good—that is, of God—in the heart, a spirit which 
declares itself in humility, in trustful prayer, in love 


1 The Law and the Prophets. The latter stand in the foreground. 
Their lot to suffer persecution is the point upon which our Lord 
lays special stress, vide sections 3, 33, 43. 


CHARACTERISTICS OF 9 231 


and placability, in the renunciation of earthly rights, 
earthly goods, and earthly cares, and lastly, in the 
readiness to suffer. Neither is there lacking a sense 
of the necessity of repentance; for this is implicit in 
all these commandments (vide supra, pp. 201 f.), and 
is, moreover, strongly emphasised in section 30 (cf. 
23). ‘Taken as a whole, we have here our Lord’s 
own rule of life and all His promises—a summary of 
genuine ordinances transforming the life, such as is 
not to be found elsewhere in the Gospel. Their 
noblest characteristic is their implicit assumption of 
the self-evidence of their claim, because man belongs 
to God; in this lies the force of their appeal. 

It is not otherwise in the sections belonging to the 
great charge at the sending forth of the disciples. 
The words are austere and stern in tone; scarcely 
ever is the terrifying prospect lightened otherwise 
than by reference to the « World to come,” or by the 
comfort that the foe cannot kill the soul. On earth 
nothing but the fate of the Prophets is to be ex- 
pected. God’s good and gracious will, and His 
providentia circa minimum, is recognisable only when 
all is over; until then He never makes up His 
account; yet He gives “good things” to those who 
ask Him for them, and He knows the needs of His 
children. 

In these discourses and sayings the term “the 
Kingdom of God” is of frequent occurrence.’ It 
is regarded as belonging to the future in section 12 
(Not all that say Lord, Lord, shall enter into the 
Kingdom of God), in section 16 (Proclaim that the 


1 Q and St. Mark agree in this characteristic. 


232 THE SAYINGS OF JESUS 


Kingdom of God is nigh at hand), in section 42 
(Gentiles will sit down with Abraham in the King- 
dom of God; but the children of the Kingdom 
will be cast out), also in section 33 (Ye shut the 
Kingdom of God: ye yourselves enter not in, and 
ye prevent others from entering),’ and in 35 (Seek 
ye after the Kingdom of God, and all these things 
will be [there] given to you). But in the four 
remaining passages it is otherwise. In section 29 
it is said that the deliverance from the power of 
the evil spirits implies that the Kingdom of God 
had already come among the people. In _ the 
parables of the Mustard Seed and the Leaven 
(section 40) it is represented as a growing power, 
an influence gradually leavening mankind, and this 
conception makes it possible to regard the new 
epoch which dawned with the active ministry of 
our Lord, succeeding the mission of the Baptist, 
as already the epoch of the Kingdom (as if present; 
sections 14, 50). This conception has nothing to 
do with that of the “Church.” Whatever the 
words: ἡ βασιλεία τοῦ θεοῦ βιάζεται, καὶ of βιασταὶ 
ἁρπάζουσιν αὐτήν may mean, they certainly do not 
sound ecclesiastical. If, however, any one finds it 
impossible to accept the antinomy “the Kingdom 
is future and yet present,” argument with him is 
useless. ‘I'he sovereignty of the eschatological point 
of view is not impaired by this antinomy—only this 
sovereignty must not be sought for exclusively in 
that dramatic eschatology to which Q also bears 
testimony, with the result that the message of Jesus 


1 The eschatological sense is not certain here. 


THE PERSONALITY OF OUR LORD 298 


is stunted in the interest of a meagre and inferior 
unity. Behind and above the dramatic eschatology 
stands the “eschatology” that God is guided by 
justice in His rewards and punishments, and that 
His will is expressed in the moral law, to which man 
must offer himself a living sacrifice. 

The proof that Q is essentially a homogeneous 
and an ancient source, is ultimately based upon the 
nature of its description of the personality of our 


Lord. Here the following observations may be .- 


made :— 

(1) As has already been noticed above (pp. 170 f.) 
Q omits any reference to the Passion. Even if 
the probable object of the compilation—namely, to 
record tne “Λόγοι τοῦ κυρίου ᾿]ησοῦ, ots ἐλάλησεν 
διδάσκων ---Ὅ6 kept well in view, this is still an 
extraordinary circumstance. However, this extra- 
ordinary circumstance is a fact from which we cannot 
escape, and it proves at all events that we have to 
do with a very ancient compilation." 


1 A sceptic acquainted with the comparative history of religions 
will perhaps find even more here. He will argue as follows: The 
most ancient source which we possess for the life of Jesus knows 
nothing of His death upon the cross. This is the more strange 
in that we have here no amorphous collection of sayings, but one 
which begins with stories telling us of a consecration to Messiah- 
ship and of a Messianic temptation successfully withstood. If 
this source had an historical introduction, it must also have 
possessed an historical conclusion—i.e. it must have given a 
narrative of the Passion—if this really happened. Seeing that no 
such narrative is given, the Passion did not really take place. 
This doubt receives confirmation when it is once considered that 
the Passion (and that indeed as a death upon the cross) is bound 
up closely with the Resurrection, and together with it formed in 
certain circles a constant element in the history of the Christ (long 


294. THE SAYINGS OF JESUS 


(2) In close connection with what has just been 
said comes the observation that Q has no interest 
in Christological apologetics such as would explain 
the choice, the arrangement, and the colouring of 
the discourses and sayings it contains. In _ this 
@ shows itself absolutely different from St. Mark, 
St. Matthew, and St. John. St. Luke here stands 
nearest to Q; but this gospel cannot well be com- 
pared with Q, because its chief interest, the de- 
scription of the supernatural mission of healing, 
is quite wanting in Q (though it evidently forms 
the background here). All that is Christological 
in Q, after the Messiahship (Divine Sonship) of 


before the time of Jesus) ; and when it is further considered that 
the Resurrection and all that is connected with it is absolutely 
untrustworthy, and is simply the result of the projection of dogma 
into the realm of history, and when, lastly, it is remembered how 
uncertain, how mysterious and questionable are all the announce- 
ments of the Passion in the gospels, and how uncertain and full of 
discrepancies is the narrative of the Passion itself. If all these cir- 
cumstances are taken into account, we only adopt half measures in 
claiming from the ideal story of the Christ only the element of the 
Passion for the historical Jesus, while rejecting the rest. We must 
rather make a clean sweep of everything, obliterating also the 
clause “crucified under Pontius Pilate.’’ The proof that our most 
ancient source knows nothing of the Passion, imprints the seal of 
truth upon our critical operation. From Q we can only conclude 
that Jesus suddenly vanished in a more or less mysterious way. 
This indeed is hinted at by the words of Q (St. Matt. xxiii. 39), 
“Ye shall not see Me henceforth until ye shall say, Blessed is He 
that cometh in the name of the Lord.” I regard it as quite 
possible that we shall very soon have to listen to this or to similar 
absurdities. The beginning is already made. In fact, there are 
far too many possible explanations of this remarkable limitation 
of Q, and above all, our knowledge of Q and of its conclusion is 
far too uncertain to allow of the building up a critical theory upon 
such a foundation. 


THE PERSONALITY OF OUR LORD 235 


our Lord has been established in the introduction 
(the stories of [the Baptism and] the Temptation), 
is only implicit, receiving its determination from 
the introduction (with the exception of section 25 
and the Announcement of the Second Coming). 
This of itself is a proof that the compilation in Q 
was imtended solely for the Christian community and 
was addressed to those who did not require the assurance 
that ther Teacher was.also the Son of God. Of course 
the apologetic epoch of Christian doctrinal tradition 
dated from the first origin of the Christian com- 
munity, but there is no need to assume that 
apologetical interests affected the details of that 
tradition from the very beginning. This indeed 
is Just what is shown in Q. 

(3) But although Q was not compiled in the 
interests of Christological apologetics, it is never- 
theless rich in discourses and sayings in which 
special prominence is given and special attention 
is drawn to the personality of Jesus. The following 
sections are to the point: 1, 2, 12, 13-15, 17, 18, 
(19), 22-26, 29, 30, 31, 34°, 34°, 37, 38, 43, 45, 46, 
50, 56, 59. What do we learn from these ? 

After St. John had drawn attention to the One 
coming after him who was greater than he, and 
had described him as one who would appear with 
the fire of judgment (in complete agreement with 
the eschatological phase of the Messianic expecta- 
tion), Q then probably proceeded to narrate the 
baptism of our Lord, together with the descent 
of the Spirit and the voice from heaven, by which 
He was marked off as the Son of God (the Messiah) 


236 THE SAYINGS OF JESUS 


in the sense of Ps. ii. 7. The use here made of 
the word from the Psalm excludes all ideas of 
pre-existence and of a miraculous birth. Q then 
goes on to describe how the Son of God (the Messiah) 
at once approved Himself as such by standing the 
test of temptation by Satan. ‘The temptations are 
Messianic—z.e. our Lord is tempted to use His 
miraculous power to break through the limitations 
imposed upon Him, the Messiah, to test Him; to 
win for Himself acceptance by working a miracle 
of display in reliance upon the angelic help that 
had been promised Him; to submit Himself to 
Satan in order that at one stroke He might become 
Lord of the earth. He resists all these temptations. 
Now begin the Λόγοι ᾿]ησοῦ, the question of Christo- 
logical apologetics is answered and done with. 

In the Sermon on the Mount, which as a whole 
lies above the level of a prophetic manifesto, the 
personality of our Lord comes into prominence at 
two points. He describes His teaching as the 
light which ought to be set on the candlestick that 
it may give light to all (section 31), and it is by 
the obedience to His commandments, which is treated 
as the same thing as doing the will of the Father, that 

1 In section 6 we read, “That ye may be children of your 
Father,” and ‘ Be ye merciful as your Father”; in section 25, 
God is four times called simply the Father, or ‘‘ Father, Lord of 
heaven and earth” (as compared with ‘“‘the Son’’), in section 27 
the disciples are instructed to address God in prayer as ‘‘ Father” ; 
in 28 we read, “ How much more will the Father (ὁ ἐξ οὐρανοῦ) give 
good things,” and in 35, ‘‘ Your Father knoweth that ye have need 
of all these things.” ‘‘My Father” is thus only found in the 


above passage (12), but it must be remembered that the text is 
doubtful here. 


THE PERSONALITY OF OUR LORD 237 


it is decided whether a man is building his house 
on a rock or on sand; the mere saying “ Lord, Lord,” 
is worthless (12). 

The story of the Centurion which now follows (13) 
is intended to give an instance not so much of the 
miraculous power of our Lord as of the faith of 
the Gentile; it only shows us implicitly that 
wondrous forces stood at His command. Jesus 
claims absolute faith and finds it—not in Israel, 
but among the Gentiles. If this story, and this 
story alone, broke the context of the sayings which 
stand in St. Matt. v.—vii. and vili—x., it accordingly 
gains extraordinary significance, but this significance 
is not Christological. 

In the charge to the disciples, and in the two 
sections which precede it (17 and 18), the special 
significance of the personality of our Lord is stated 
again only indirectly but the more impressively. 
Now is the field ripe unto harvest (18), but the 
labourers are few; to be a labourer means to follow 
Jesus wherever He goes, even to the extreme point 
of destitution, and to follow Him renouncing all 
earlier relationships, even that to one’s own father 
(17); for «I am come not to bring peace, but the 
sword, and to set nearest relations at variance with 

1 Notice that the saying: ‘‘ Foxes have holes, &c.,” says nothing 
of the following even unto death, but only unto the bitterest 
poverty. What a sign of genuineness! In section 46 however 
it is otherwise ; there the bearing of the cross is demanded as the 
necessary form of discipleship. It is, as already noticed, the only 
passage iin which the death upon the cross is referred to inQ. As 
has been shown, it is not certain whether ‘I send you as sheep 


into the midst of wolves,” and ‘‘ He that receiveth you, receiveth 
Me, &c.,” stood in Ω. 


238 THE SAYINGS OF JESUS 


another” (38 and 45). Jesus must be confessed 
before men; for only those that make such a 
confession will be acknowledged by Him at the 
Judgment before the Angels (943). Capernaum 
is “lifted up to Heaven” by our Lord’s ministry 
in that city, Chorazin and Bethsaida have seen 
mighty works such as had been wrought in no 
other city—with the result that the judgment upon 
their unbelief would be only the more terrible. 
With Jesus begins a new epoch—He is the touch- 
stone, the sign of final decision and judgment 
for all. 7 
In these sayings, besides the mention of the 
Messianic acknowledgment at the Judgment, we find 
the expression “Son of Man” used three times (17, 
945. Ὁ): 1 while it occurs four times elsewhere in Q 
(15, 30, 37, 56)—«'The Son of Man hath not where 
to lay His head,” «'The Son of Man will acknowledge 
those who confess Him,” «A word said against the 
Son of Man will be forgiven,” «The Son of Man 
came eating and drinking,” « As Jonah was to the 
Ninevites, so is the Son of Man become a sign to this 
generation,” “'The Son of Man cometh at an hour 
when ye expect Him not,” « As the days of Noah, 
so also will be the coming of the Son of Man.” 
Three of these sayings are eschatological in char- 
acter; but the four others seem to deprive this cir- 
cumstance of its significance. We must acknowledge 


\ that in Q the phrase has become simply a term which 


our Lord ordinarily used when speaking of Himself. 
Seeing that Q pays no regard to chronology, this 


1 Yet it is doubtful in section 34, 


THE PERSONALITY OF OUR LORD 289 


source is not suitable as an authority upon which to 
base investigations as to the period at which our Lord 
began so to describe Himself. Such investigations 
can only be based upon the Gospel of St. Mark. Q, 
however, gives some help in that we learn from this 
source how completely and quickly the consciousness, 
that there was once a time when our Lord did not so 
name Himself, had vanished from tradition. There 
can scarcely be any doubt as to the sense of the 
expression in Q. If in Q the only historical passages 
—historical, that is, in the narrower sense of the 
word—are the narratives of the testimony of the 
Baptist to the coming Messiah (of the Baptism), and 
of the Messianic temptation, and if then abruptly 
and repeatedly the expression “the Son of Man” 
crops up in the collection of sayings, it necessarily 
follows that in Q the term can mean nothing else 
than “the Messiah.” ἢ 

The compiler of Q, when he himself speaks, never 
uses the term; he speaks simply of Jesus (not ὁ 
κύριος) or of “6 Χριστός." The latter term is used 
in the introduction to the sections concerning the 
Baptist (14, 15, 50). The references to the person- 
ality of our Lord in this discourse, and in the great 
thanksgiving to the Father, are the most important 
in the whole collection of sayings. Our Lord here 


1 Tam still of the opinion that it is very probable that also in 
the mouth of Jesus it never had any other meaning.—Of course 
one cannot be sure that Jesus always called Himself Son of Man 
in those passages where Q makes Him thus speak of Himself. 
It is, for example, more than doubtful that Jesus used the expres- 
sion in section 15, when before in the same discourse (section 14) 
He had plainly enough avoided any Messianic self-designation. 


240 THE SAYINGS OF JESUS 


appeals to His works (as in section 23 to His δυνάμεις). 
These are the works of Messiah; but the open de- 
claration «I am the Messiah” is avoided. To these 
works belong also the «“« πτωχοὶ εὐαγγελίζονται;" and 
it is this which is either exclusively or principally 
referred to in the Beatitude “ μακάριός ἐστιν ὃς ἂν μὴ 
σκανδαλισθῇ ἐν ἐμοί," which in Q must naturally be 
understood in a Messianic sense. In the following 
passage the high appreciation of the Baptist, who is 
represented as surpassing all the prophets, is ulti- 
mately based not upon the real greatness of the man 
himself but upon his office as forerunner; this again 
gives wmdirect expression to the Messiahship of Jesus, 
which is fully disclosed in the sentence that the least 
in the Kingdom of God is greater than John. — 
Accordingly, the simple contrasting phrases: “'The 
Baptist came ”—« 'The Son of Man came,” cannot be 
understood as implying equality in the contrasted 
subjects in a passage whose genuineness is guaranteed 
by the unique information it affords us: «“'The Son 
of Man came eating and drinking, and they say, 
Behold a man gluttonous and ἃ winebibber, a 
friend of publicans and sinners!” This definition 
of the significance of the Baptist, in contrast to the 
prophets on the one hand, and to our Lord on the 
other hand, removes all cause for hesitation in accept- 
ing the genuineness of the saying that the Prophets 
and the Law lasted until John. 

It is said—-I return yet again to the historical 
question (vide supra, pp. 216 f.)—that this whole 
discourse is the product of a later time. Who 
indeed would defend the exact verbal accuracy of 


THE PERSONALITY OF OUR LORD 241 


such a discourse! But, on the other hand, we must 
bear in mind that in Q it stands in the midst of a 
context whose interest is purely ethical, and that Q’s 
aims are not those of apologetical Christology. We 
must further remember that it is purely a petitio 
principw to assume that our Lord could not Himself 
have spoken concerning matters which also in after 
times claimed men’s attention and were the subject 
of their discussion. Why could He not have given 
expression to His views concerning the Baptist just 
as we read in Q, seeing that the context (St. Matt. 
xi. 4-6 and xi. 16-19) is as trustworthy as it is 
possible to imagine it to be? Must we not, indeed, 
confess that He was simply compelled to express 
Himself concerning the Baptist, and that there is 
nothing extraordinary in the fact that He on the one 
hand subordinated St. John to Himself, and on the 
other ranked him above the Prophets? Nothing else, 
however, nothing more of essential importance, is said 
about him, with the exception of the scarcely genuine 
ἀπὸ τότε ἕως ἄρτι. That in the background of the 
whole discourse there lies the presupposition «I am 
He,” affords no ground for suspicion ; if so, one must 
draw the pen through the whole content of the gospels. 

The following pericope (section 25), to which sec- 
tion 26 perhaps belongs, has been already discussed 
above from the Christological standpoint (pp. 218 ff.). 
It forms the climax of our Lord’s self-revelation, and 
yet it does not assert more than that He had been 
permitted to bring to the simple ones the knowledge 
of God—that knowledge which He alone as the Son 
(the Messiah) was the first to receive, and which He 

Q 


242 THE SAYINGS OF JESUS 


was now revealing to whomsoever He willed. 'The 
saying in which the disciples are pronounced blessed 
because they see and hear what all the Prophets 
(and kings) had desired in vain to see and hear, 
once again brings to light the final and absolute 
character of this knowledge of God, and at the same 
time testifies to the fact that our Lord (vide the 
preceding paragraph) really did reflect upon the re- 
lationship of the past and the present—not only in 
reference to the Law but also to the Prophets. 

This also appears in the Beelzebub section (29); 
for if in our Lord’s exorcism of devils through the 


\, power of the Spirit of God, the Kingdom of God had 


already appeared upon earth, then it followed that a 
new epoch had dawned, the epoch, namely, of Messiah. 
He needs not to give Himself this name, nor does He 
assume it—the facts speak for themselves. Here again 
He is proclaimed to be the sign of decision and of 
judgment for all (vide supra, p. 238) in the words: 
« He that is not with Me is against Me.” It is the 
same thought which is expressed in the next section 
(30) in the words: « As Jonah was to the Ninevites, 
so am I also to this generation” ’—the preacher of 
repentance—but the preacher who is greater than 
Jonah, and the king who is wiser than Solomon. The 
thought of the Second Coming is first touched upon 
in the concluding sections, and with it is combined 
the revelation of the Messiahship; this is found in 

1 The seeming discrepancy that also in Q our Lord points to 
His δυνάμεις and ἔργα, and yet declares that no sign should be 
given to this generation, is no discrepancy at all. He will not 


have wonders and signs wrung from Him by this generation any 
more than by Satan. 


THE PERSONALITY OF OUR LORD 243 


section 43: οὐ μή με ἴδητε ἀπ᾽ ἄρτι ἕως ἂν (ἥξῃ ὅτε) 
εἴπητε" εὐλογημένος ὁ ἐρχόμενος ἐν ὀνόματι κυρίου, in 
section 37 where it lies at the foundation of the 
whole section, and in section 56 where it likewise 
dominates every sentence. In the first section the 
destruction of Jerusalem (of the Temple?) is also 
foretold, but only in words quoted from a more 
ancient prophecy. In the second section the thought 
of the Second Coming is employed to enforce the 
need of watchfulness, of preparedness, of conscientious 
faithfulness; in the third section a description is 
given of the state of the world at the Second Coming 
—just as it was in the days of Noah—and of the 
awful suddenness and unexpectedness of that coming ; 
a warning is also given against false Messiahs. Per- 
haps the last saying that stood in Q is section 59: 
« Ye, that follow Me, shall sit upon twelve thrones, 
judging the twelve tribes of Israel.” This saying 
affords us the strongest imaginable testimony that Q 
is dominated by the belief in the Messiahship of 
Jesus; the fact of the Messiahship is proved in the 
introduction, it is presupposed as self-evident from 
beginning to end of the work, and in the eschato- 
logical discourses it is revealed by Jesus Himself. 

The “Christology” of the source, as the compiler 
understood wt, presents a perfectly simple and con- 
sistent picture’ The compiler of Q could not 


1 Only in section 10 does our Lord describe Himself (indirectly) 
as teacher and His disciples as pupils; nevertheless this relation- 
ship is implicitly presupposed also in other places, The existence 
of this relationship, side by side with that of the Messiah to His 
subjects, presented no problem to the compiler, who simply 
subordinated one to the other. The Messiah who brought the 
revelation of the knowledge of God could only reveal by teaching. 


9244. THE SAYINGS OF JESUS 


imagine otherwise than that Jesus was the Messiah, 
consecrated as Son of God at the Baptism; all the 
sayings of his compilation, therefore, stand out against 
this background. If, however, we think away the mtro- 
duction, the resultant picture is essentially different. 
We now have before us a compilation of sayings in 
which the speaker is a teacher, a prophet, one who is 
more than a prophet—the final decisive Messenger of 
God ; but so surely as He demands unconditional 
obedience to His commands, in which the Will of God 
is expressed, and calls upon men to follow Him, so 
little does He do this with the expressed self-witness : 
«I am the Messiah.” Rather He points simply to 
His miracles and His works (in so far as He does not 
count upon the self-evidence of His commands in 
their appeal to the hearts of His hearers). If one 
therefore neglects the term “Son of Man ”—which 
was certainly used by our Lord, though we cannot be 
sure that it is genuine in any particular saying— 
Jesus first asserts His claim to the Messiahship in the 
sayings at the close of the source, but only in connec- 
tion with and under the imagery of the Second Coming ; 
He who already in His present state of existence is 
more than a prophet and greater than John, He who 
is the Son, will be the coming King and Judge. 
Critical investigation of the accounts in St. Mark 
seems to compel us to the conclusion that our Lord 
during the first and longest period of His ministry — 
did not speak of Himself as the Messiah (because He 
at first neither regarded Himself as Messiah, nor 
indeed could so regard Himself) and even rejected 
the title of Messiahship when it was applied to 


THE PERSONALITY OF OUR LORD 245 


Himself, but that, on the other hand, He was pos- 
sessed by the strongest conviction that as a messenger 
of God He was entrusted with a mission of decisive 
import, and that He knew God as none other knew 
Him—a conviction to which He again and again gave 
expression ; and that at a later period after He had 
accepted at Cesarea Philippi the confession of the 
disciples: «'Thou art the Messiah ”—i.e. « Thou wilt 
be He” +—He from henceforth (though indeed still 
with reserve until the entry into Jerusalem) called 
Himself the Son of Man, and with growing con- 
fidence proclaimed His Parousia, ὁ.6. His Messiahship. 
There is nothing in the compilation of discourses in 
Q, if only we neglect the introduction, which can be 
alleged to be discrepant with this picture of gradual 
development. We cannot, it must also be acknow- 
ledged, derive from Q certain testimony to the detailed 
accuracy of this picture, because Q pays such slight 
regard to chronology; nevertheless Q also bears wit- 
ness to the main position, in that in the sayings 
collected in Q the Messiahship is only clearly ex- 
pressed under the form of the Parousia,” and in that in 


1 The absence of this important passage in Q suggests that we 
should not exaggerate its importance. Besides, the question of 
St. John, together with the answer of our Lord in Q, can be 
regarded as a parallel to the passage in question. 

2 The great thanksgiving to the Father could be in point of 
time posterior to St. Mark viii. 27 ff., but this hypothesis is not 
necessary. With the most careful and reverent application of 
psychological methods, it is obvious that our Lord’s consciousness 
of Sonship must have preceded in time His consciousness of 
Messiahship, must indeed have formed a stepping-stone to the 
latter. In spite of all that has been deduced from the apocalyptic 
and dogmatic Messianic conceptions of the times, we must assert 
that the consciousness of Divine Sonship and of Messiahship could 


246 THE SAYINGS OF JESUS 


these sayings our Lord claims faith not because He is 
the present Messiah—this is unthinkable—but because 
He works the works of God and proclaims His com- 
mandments. 


VII.— CONCLUSION 
THE ORIGIN AND THE HISTORICAL VALUE OF Q 


If we consider Q apart from its introduction 
(sections 1 and 2), we see at once that we are dealing 
with a document of the highest antiquity—there 
is here no need of proof; but even if we take into 
our view @ together with the introduction, there 
is little difference in the final verdict. The idea 
that Jesus was endowed with the Messiahship at 
the Baptism had, as St. Mark shows, already taken 
form in the apostolic age and in the circle of the 
immediate disciples—how early we do not know. An 
idea so impressive and so incapable of proof or of 
disproof could have taken form and have established 
itself in the Christian community at a very early 
date. 'The view indeed which preceded it, according 
to which Jesus was declared by God to be the 
Messiah by means of an act of glorification, is an 
idea which had already completely lost its signi- 
ficance for St. Mark, while St. Matthew and 


not have existed together from the beginning ; for the conscious- 
ness of Messiahship never meant anything else for our Lord than 
a consciousness of what He was about to become. In His soul the 
consciousness of what He was must have come first, and only when 
this had attained to the height of consciousness of Sonship could 
the tremendous leap be taken to the consciousness of Messiahship. 


HISTORICAL VALUE OF Q 247 


St. Luke knew no more of it than what they read 
in St. Mark. Further, the fact that our Lord 
throughout the principal part of His ministry had 
not represented Himself as being the future, and 
still less the present, Messiah, was afterwards found 
to be no difficulty at all. The disciples needed 
only to say to themselves: “We did not under- 
stand Him,” and this is just what they did say. 
The cases of discrepancy and confusion which we 
find in their own and their disciples’ reproduction 
of particular stories and discourses, and which have 
led to the adoption of such strange subterfuges 
and harmonising hypotheses in the interpretation 
of the Markan accounts, did not exist for those 
who were provided with this refugiwm ignorant} 
St. Mark indeed knows as little of a development 
in our Lord’s consciousness as Q; he also, like Q, 
places the revelation of the Divine Sonship (the 
Messiahship) at the beginning of our Lord’s active 
ministry, and it is only because of the careless 
and naive fashion in which one may say he has 
gathered together and heaped up his materials— 
in strange contrast with the energy with which he 
follows his main purpose and finds it vouched for in 
the most discrepant narratives—that we (against the 
will and intention of St. Mark) receive any hint of 
stages of development in the ministry of our Lord. 


Q@, a compilation of sayings originally written 
in Aramaic (vide Wellhausen, Nestle, and others), 


1 These show us, however, the relative faithfulness of their 
record, 


248 THE SAYINGS OF JESUS 


belongs to the apostolic epoch. This is shown by 
its form and contents, nor can I discern any reasons 
for a contrary opinion; in particular, the destruc- 
tion of Jerusalem is not here presupposed as having 
already occurred. It is, moreover, more ancient 
than St. Mark. The influence of “ Paulinism” which 
ὁ8δ so strong m St. Mark is entirely wanting, and 
accordingly the main theme of St. Mark—that Jesus, 
His death and resurrection, form the content of His 
own gospel—is not to be found m Q.’ It is evident 
that Ὁ was composed in Palestine—its Jewish and 
Palestinian horizon is quite obvious. St. Mark, 
however, wrote his gospel in Rome. No _ proof 
can be given of any literary relationship between 
the two works. This is an indication that we 
must not set Q too early; for it Q had been 
already long in circulation it is incomprehen- 
sible that St. Mark neither knew it nor used it, 
even though he wrote at a place far distant from 
Palestine. : ; 

Is Q of apostolic origin? I can make no 
new contribution towards settling this question. 
That Papias (like Eusebius) in the well-known 
passage (Euseb., « Hist. Eccl.,” iii. 39) means our St. 
Matthew, is very probable; whether, however, the 
Presbyter meant this St. Matthew, is doubtful. 
Seeing that our St. Matthew cannot have been 


1 Moreover even in passages peculiar to St. Matthew sayings 
occur which must have taken form before the destruction of 
Jerusalem. 

2 There is surely no need for me to notice the theory that Q 
was intended as a complement to the Gospel of St. Mark, who 
had gathered together all the tradition within his reach, 


HISTORICAL VALUE OF Q 249 


composed by an Apostle, and that the tradition: 
Ματθαῖος ‘EBpatd: διαλέκτῳ τὰ λόγια συνετάξατο; 
already dates from about 4.D. 100, there is a strong 
balance of probability that Q is a work of St. 
Matthew; but more cannot be said. It is useless 
to discuss the historical and psychological question 
whether one of the Twelve could have composed 
such a compilation as Q; convincing reasons either 
for or against cannot be discovered. From the 
so-called charge to the Apostles we can only con- 
clude that behind the written record there stands 
the memory of an apostolic listener. But who- 
ever the author, or rather the redactor, of Q may 
have been, he was a man deserving of the highest 
respect. Τὸ his reverence and faithfulness, to his 
simple-minded common-sense, we owe this priceless 
compilation of the sayings of Jesus. 

Our knowledge of the teaching and the history 
of our Lord, in their main features at least, thus 
depends upon two authorities independent of one 
another, yet composed at nearly the same time. 
Where they agree their testimony is strong, and 
they agree often and on important points... On 
the rock of their united testimony the assault of 
destructive critical views, however necessary these 
are to easily self-satisfied research, will ever be 
shattered to pieces. 

And yet again how different are these two sources! 
On the one hand St. Mark—wherein page by page 
the student is reduced to despair by the incon- 


1 Compare especially the historical background and the historical 
references in numerous sayings in Q. 


250 THE SAYINGS OF JESUS 


sistencies, the discrepancies, and the incredibilities of 
the narrative—and yet without this gospel we should 
be deprived of every thread of consistent and concrete 
historical information concerning the life of Jesus; 
and on the other hand, this compilation of sayings, 
which alone affords us a really exact and profound 
conception of the teaching of Jesus, and is free 
from bias, apologetic or otherwise, and yet gives 
us no history. In St. Mark an almost complete 
inability to distinguish between what is primary or 
secondary, between what is trustworthy or question- 
able, an apologetic which grasps at all within its 
reach, to which everything is welcome and right— 
and yet at the same time a feeling for detail and 
for life, and even where this feeling is not present, 
the actual preservation of these traits; in Q, on the 
other hand, a many-sidedness in reference to that 
which is the most important, which quite com- 
pensates us for the want of « history.” 

Which is the more valuable? Eighteen centuries 
of Christianity have answered this question, and 
their answer is true. The portrait of Jesus as given 
im the sayings of Q has remained in the foreground, 
The attempts which have been made to replace it by 
that of St. Mark have met with no success; they will 
lead ever and again into the abyss of confusion, they 
will come to nought through their own inconsistency. 
The collection of sayings and St. Mark must remain mn 
power, but the former takes precedence. Above all, the 
tendency to exaggerate the apocalyptic and eschato- 


1 This is so even with the sketch of the personality of our Lord 
drawn by Wellhausen in his History of Israel. 


HISTORICAL VALUE OF 9 251 


logical element in our Lord’s message, and to sub- 
ordinate to this the purely religious and _ ethical 
elements, will ever find its refutation in Q. This 
source is the authority for that which formed the 
central theme of the message of our Lord—that is, 
the revelation of the knowledge of God, and the 
moral call to repent and to believe, to renounce 
the world and to gain heaven—this and nothing 
else. 

We cannot tell how long this compilation remained 
in existence. Its traces in St. Clement of Rome and 
in writers after his time are not certain. It found 
its grave in the gospels of St. Matthew and St. Luke, 
and probably elsewhere in some apocryphal gospels. 
St. Mark alone could not have supplanted it; but 
the narrative type of gospel, which was created by 
the second evangelist and which answered to the 
needs of catechetical apologetics, no longer allowed 
the separate existence of a compilation of sayings. 
The final blow to the independent existence of Q was 
dealt when it was incorporated in the gospels of St. 
Luke and St. Matthew. In St. Luke it exists, split 
up and dispersed throughout the gospel in sub- 
servience to the historical narrative; in St. Matthew 
it was treated in more conservative spirit, though in 
some important passages it has suffered more from 
revision and shows clearer traces of the particular 
bias of the evangelist. In most skilful fashion—often 
only by means of an accent or by an arrangement of 
the context which seems quite insignificant—the first 
evangelist has made this compilation of discourses 
subservient to his own special interest in the Christian 


252 THE SAYINGS OF JESUS 


community and its organisation, while St. Luke, who 
has much more frequently altered the wording of his 
source, has nevertheless kept so closely to it in 
essential points that its original character is more 
clearly perceived in his reproduction. 


APPENDIX TO CHAPTER II 


‘TRANSLATION OF Ὁ 
i 


(When John saw many for: the multitudes] coming 
to baptism, he said to them): Ye offspring of vipers, 
who warned you to flee from the wrath to come? 
Bring forth therefore fruit worthy of repentance ; 
and think not [begin not] to say within yourselves: 
We have Abraham for our father; for I say unto 
you that God is able of these stones to raise up 
children to Abraham. Already the axe is laid to 
the root of the trees; every tree therefore that 
bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down and 
cast into the fire. I indeed baptize you with water 
unto repentance; but he that cometh after me is 
mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to 
bear, he will baptize you with (the [Holy] Spirit and) 
with fire. Whose fan is in his hand, and he will 
thoroughly purge his threshing-floor and will gather 

1 The numbers are those of the Greek text on pp. 127-146. Aline 
of dots preceding a passage shows that its original position in Q is 
uncertain. All that is otherwise uncertain is placed in brackets. 
In general, it must be remembered that in the case of quite short 
sayings, whose position in Q is doubtful, there is also a doubt 


whether they belong to Q at all. Such are found in 16, 19, 24, 
26-28, 31, 32, 35, 36, 39-42, 44, 47-55. 
208 


254 THE SAYINGS OF JESUS 


his wheat into the barn, but the chaff he will burn up 
with fire unquenchable. 


(The baptism of Jesus, together with the descent of 
the Spirit and the voice from heaven.) 


2. 


Jesus was led up by the Spirit into the wilderness 
to be tempted by the devil, and when he had fasted 
forty days and forty nights he afterwards hungered, 
and the tempter said to him: If thou art the Son of 
God, command that these stones become bread, and 
he answered: It is written, Man shall not lve by bread 
alone. 'Then he taketh him with him to Jerusalem 
and set him on the pinnacle of the temple and saith 
to him: If thou art the Son of God, cast thyself down ; 
for it is written, He shall give his angels charge con- 
cerning thee, and im their hands they shall bear thee up 
lest haply thow dash thy foot agamst a stone. Jesus 
said to him: Again it is written, Thou shalt not tempt 
the Lord thy God. Again he taketh him with him to 
an exceeding high mountain and sheweth him all the 
kingdoms of the world and the glory of them, and 
said to him: All these will I give thee if thou wilt 
worship me. And Jesus saith to him: It is written, 
Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God and him only shalt 
thou serve. And the devil leaveth him. 


3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 11, 12, 9, 27, 28, 31, 32, 35, 36, 
39, 41, 47, 49, 51, 52. 
(He taught his disciples in the presence of the 
multitude as follows) :— 


TRANSLATION OF Q 255 


Blessed are the poor, for theirs is the kingdom of 
God; 

Blessed are they that mourn, for they shall be 
comforted ; 

Blessed are they that hunger, for they shall be 
filled ; 

Blessed are ye, when they shall revile you and per- 
secute you and say all manner of evil against you 
falsely ; rejoice and be exceeding glad, for great is 
your reward in heaven; for so persecuted they the 
prophets which were before you. 


Whosoever smiteth thee on the (thy right) cheek 
turn to him the other also, and if any man would go 
to law with thee and take away thy coat let him have 
thy cloke also. 


Give to him that asketh thee, and from him that 
would borrow from thee turn not away. 


I say unto you: Love your enemies and pray for 
your persecutors, that ye may become the sons of your 
Father, for he maketh his sun to rise upon the evil 
and the good (and sendeth rain on the just and the 
unjust). For if ye love those which love you, what 
reward have ye? Do not even the publicans the 
same? And if ye salute your brethren only, what 
do ye more than others? Do not even the Gentiles 
the same? Ye shall therefore be merciful as your 
Father is merciful. 


All things whatsoever ye would that men should 
do unto you, even so do ye also unto them. 


256 THE SAYINGS OF JESUS 


Judge not, that ye be not judged. For with what 
judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged; and with 
what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you. 
But why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy 
brother’s eye, but perceivest not the beam that is 
in thine own eye? Or how wilt thou say to thy 
brother: Let be, I will cast out the mote from thine 
eye, and the beam is in thine own eye? ‘Thou 
hypocrite, cast out first the beam from thine own 
eye, and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the 
mote from thy brother’s eye. 


The tree is known from the fruit. Do they gather 
grapes from thorns or figs from thistles? Even so 
every good tree bringeth forth excellent fruit, but 
the corrupt tree bringeth forth bad fruit. A good 
tree cannot bear bad fruit, neither can a corrupt tree 
bring forth excellent fruit. 


(Not everyone that saith unto me: Lord, Lord! 
shall enter into the kingdom of God, but he that 
doeth the will of my Father.) Everyone therefore 
that heareth these my words and doeth them, I will 
shew you to whom he is like. He is like (or in place 
of the last twelve words: He shall be likened) to a 
man who built his house upon the rock. And the 
rain came down, and the floods arose, and the 
winds blew and beat upon that house, and it fell 
not; for it had been founded upon the rock. And 
everyone that heareth these my words and doeth 
them not, shall be likened to a man who built his 
house upon the sand. And the rain came down, 
and the floods arose, and the winds blew and smote 


TRANSLATION OF 9 257 


upon that house, and it fell, and great was the fall 
thereof. 


If the blind lead the blind, both shall fall into the 
ditch. 


(Father, give us this day our bread for the coming 
day, and remit us our debts, as we also have remitted 
to our debtors, and lead us not into temptation.) 


Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall 
find; knock, and it shall be opened to you. For 
everyone that asketh receiveth, and he that seeketh 
findeth, and to him that knocketh it shall be opened. 
Or what man is there of you, of whom his son shall 
ask bread, will he give him a stone? Or if he shall 
ask for a fish, will he give him a serpent? If then 
ye being evil know how to give good things (gifts) to 
your children, how much more will the Father from 
heaven give good things to those who ask him. 


Men do not light a lamp and place it under a 
bushel, but upon a lamp-stand, and it giveth light to 
all that are in the house. 


The light of the body is the (thine) eye; if then 
thine eye be single, thy whole body shall be full of 
light; but if thine eye be evil, thy whole body shall 


R 


258 THE SAYINGS OF JESUS 


be darkened. If therefore the light which is in thee 
be darkness, how great will the darkness [scé/. in the 
whole outlook of the soul] then be! 


Wherefore I say unto you: Be not anxious for 
your life, what ye shall eat; nor for your body, what 
ye shall put on. Is not the life more than meat and 
the body than raiment? Look at the ravens (or: 
the birds of the heaven), they sow not, neither reap 
nor gather into barns, and God feedeth them. Are 
. ye not much better than they? Which of you by 
being anxious can add one cubit to his stature; and 
why are ye anxious about raiment? Consider the 
lilies, how they grow! ‘They toil not, neither do 
they spin; but I say unto you, even Solomon in all 
his glory was not arrayed as one of these. If then 
in the field God so clothe the grass which is to-day, 
and to-morrow is cast into the oven, will he not much 
more you, O ye of little faith? Therefore be not 
anxious, saying: What shall we eat? or What shall 
we drink? or Wherewithal shall we be clothed? 
For after all these things do the nations (of the 
world) seek; for your Father knoweth that ye have 
need of all these things. But seek ye his kingdom, 
and all these things shall be added unto you. 


Lay not up for yourselves treasures upon earth, 
where moth and rust doth consume, and where thieves 
break through and steal: but lay up for yourselves 
treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust doth 


TRANSLATION OF Q 259 


consume, and where thieves do not break through nor 
steal; for where thy (your) treasure is, there will thy 
(your) heart be also. 


Agree with thine adversary quickly, whilst thou 
art in the way with him; lest the adversary deliver 
thee to the judge and the judge to the officer, and 
thou be cast into prison. (Verily) I say unto thee, 
thou shalt by no means come out thence, till thou 
hast paid the last farthing. 


Enter in by the narrow gate; for wide (is the gate) 
and broad is the way that leadeth to destruction, and 
many there be that enter by it. Because narrow is 
the gate and straitened the way that leadeth to life, 
and few there be that find it. 


Ye are the salt (of the land); if however the salt 
have lost its savour, wherewith shall it be salted? 
It is thenceforth good for nothing but to be cast out 
and trodden under foot by men. 


No one can serve two masters, for either he will 
hate the one and love the other, or he will hold to 
the one and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God 
and mammon. 


(Verily I say unto you): Until heaven and earth 


260 THE SAYINGS OF JESUS 


pass away, one iota or one tittle-shall not pass away 
from the law. | 


(I say unto you): Everyone who divorceth his wife 
maketh her an adulteress, and whosoever marrieth her 
that is divorced committeth adultery. 


(After he had spoken these words), he entered 
into Capernaum, and a centurion came to him 
beseeching him and saying: Lord, my servant lieth 
in the house sick of the palsy, grievously tormented. 
He saith to him: I will come and heal him. But 
the centurion answered and said: Lord, I am not 
worthy that thou shouldest enter beneath my roof; 
but only say the word and my servant shall be 
healed. For 1 also am a man under authority, 
having soldiers under me, and I say to this one: 
Go, and he goeth; and to another: Come, and 
he cometh; and to my slave: Do this, and he 
doeth it. When Jesus heard he marvelled and 
said to those that followed: (Verily) I say unto you, 
Not even in Israel have I found such faith. (And 
Jesus said to the centurion: [Go thy way] as thou 
hast believed, be it done unto thee. And the 
servant was healed in that very hour.) 


17, 18, 16, 20, 21, 22, 19, 845, 34, 38, 46, 
46, 57, 10, 24. 
(One said to him): I will follow thee whither- 
soever thou goest; and Jesus saith to him: Foxes 
have holes, and the birds of the heaven have nests; 


TRANSLATION OF 9 261 


but the Son of man hath not where to lay his 
head. Another said to him: Suffer me first to 
go away and bury my father; but he saith to 
him: Follow me, and let the dead bury their own 
dead. 


He saith to them (or: to his disciples): The 
harvest is great but the labourers are few; pray 
therefore the Lord of the harvest that he send 
forth labourers into his harvest. 


Go and preach, saying, that the kingdom of God 
is at hand. | 


(Carry no purse, no scrip, no shoes, and greet no 
one by the way). . . . When however ye enter 
into a house, salute it; and if the house is worthy, 
let your peace come upon it; but if it be not 
worthy, let your peace return to you again. 


(Abide in the same house, and eat and drink 
what they give you); for the labourer is worthy 
of his meat. 


(. . . Into whatsoever city ye enter and they 
receive you, eat that which is set before you and 
say to them: The kingdom of God is at hand. 
But into whatsoever city ye enter and they receive 
you not, go out into its streets and say: Even the 
dust of your city which cleaveth to our feet do 
we shake off and leave it to you). (Verily) I say 
unto you: It will be more tolerable for the land 
of Sodom and Gomorrha (or in place of the last 


262 THE SAYINGS OF JESUS 


six words: Sodom) in that day (or: in the day 
of judgment) than for that city. 


Behold I send you forth as sheep in the midst 
of wolves. 


Nothing is secret which shall not be revealed, 
and hidden which shall not be made known. What 
I say unto you in darkness speak forth in the light; 
and what ye hear in the ear publish upon the house- 
tops. And be not afraid of those that kill the 
body but cannot kill the soul; but rather be 
afraid of him who is able to destroy both soul 
and body in Gehenna. Are not two (five) sparrows 
sold for one farthing (two farthings)? And not 
one of them shall fall to the earth without God. 
But the very hairs of your head are all numbered. 
Be not (therefore) afraid, ye are of much more value 
than sparrows. Everyone therefore who shall con- 
fess me before men, him will the Son of man (or: [Ὁ 
also confess before the angels of God; but whoso- 
ever shall deny me before men, him will I also. deny 
before the angels of God. 


. . And whosoever shall speak a word against 
the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him; but 
whosoever shall speak (a word) against the Holy 
Spirit, it shall not be forgiven him. 


Think ye that I came to send peace on the earth? 


TRANSLATION OF Q 263 


I came not to send peace, but a sword. For 1 
came to set a man at variance against his father, and 
the daughter against her mother, and the daughter- 
in-law against her mother-in-law. (And a man’s 
foes are those of his own household.) 


(He that loveth father or mother more than me, 
is not worthy of me; and he that loveth son and 
daughter more than me, is not worthy of me.) 


Whosoever doth not take his cross and follow 
after me is not worthy of me. 


He that findeth his life shall lose it, and he that 
loseth his life shall find it. 


The disciple is not above his master, neither the 
servant above his lord. It is sufficient for the 
disciple that he become as his master, and _ the 
servant as his lord. 


(Whosoever receiveth you receiveth me, and who- 
soever receiveth me receiveth him that sent me.) 


14, 50, 15. 


But when John heard in the prison the works of 
the Christ, he sent by his disciples and said unto him : 
Art thou he that cometh, or do we look for another ? 


204 THE SAYINGS OF JESUS 


And he answered and said unto them: Go tell John 
what ye hear and see, the blind receive their sight, 
the lame walk, the lepers are cleansed, and the deaf 
hear, and the dead are raised up, and the poor have 
good tidings preached to them; and blessed is he 
whosoever shall find no cause of stumbling in me. 
And as these were on their way, he began to speak 
to the multitudes concerning John: What went ye 
out into the wilderness to behold? A reed shaken 
by the wind? ‘But what went ye out to see? A 
man clothed in soft raiment? Behold they that 
wear soft raiment are in kings’ houses! But why 
went ye out? ‘To see a prophet? Yea, I say unto 
you, and more than a prophet! ‘This is he of whom 
it is written: Behold I send my angel before thy face, 
who shall prepare thy way before thee. (Verily) I say 
unto you, there hath not risen among those born 
of women a greater than John (the Baptist); but 
he that is least in the kingdom of God is greater 
than he... . 


The prophets and the law were until John; from 
then until now the kingdom of God suffereth violence, 
and the violent take it by force (or: From the days 
of John until now the kingdom of God, &c.; for all 
the prophets and the law prophesied until John)... . 


To what shall I liken this generation (and to what 
is it like)? It is like unto children sitting in the 
market-places, which cry unto their fellows, saying: 
We piped unto you, and ye danced not ; we mourned 
unto you, and ye beat not the breast. For John 
came neither eating nor drinking, and they say: He 


TRANSLATION OF 9 265 


hath a devil! The Son of man came eating and 
drinking, and they say, Behold a man gluttonous 
and a winebibber, a friend of publicans and sinners! 
And wisdom is justified of her children. 


23. 


Woe unto thee, Chorazin! woe unto thee, Beth- 
saida! For if the mighty works which were done in 
you had been done in Tyre and Sidon, they would 
long ago have repented in sackcloth and ashes. Yet 
(I say unto you) it will be more tolerable for Tyre 
and Sidon (in the day of judgment, or: in the judg- 
ment) than for you. And thou Capernaum shalt 
thou have been exalted to heaven? ‘To hell thou 
shalt be cast down! 


25. 


At that time he said: I thank thee, Father, Lord 
of heaven and earth, that thou didst hide these 
things from the wise and prudent, and didst reveal 
them unto babes; yea [I thank thee] Father, for so it 
seemed good in thy sight. All [all knowledge] has 
been delivered to me by my Father, and no one hath 
known (the Son except the Father, neither hath any 
one known) the Father except the Son, and he to 
whomsoever the Son willeth to reveal him. 


26. 


Blessed are your eyes, for they see, and (your) ears, 
for they hear; (for verily) I say unto you that many 


266 THE SAYINGS OF JESUS 
prophets (and kings) desired to see the things which 


ye see and have not seen them, and to hear the things 
which ye hear and have not heard them. 


29. 


(He healed) a dumb man possessed with a devil, 
(so that) the dumb spake and the multitudes (all) 
marvelled . . . every kingdom which is divided 
against itself cometh to desolation . . . and if I by 
Beelzebub cast out devils, by whom do your sons cast 
them out? therefore they shall be your judges. But 
if I by the Spirit of God cast out devils, then indeed 
is the kingdom of God come upon you. . . . He that 
is not with me is against me, and he that gathereth 
not with me scattereth. . . . Whenever the unclean 
spirit is gone out of a man he passeth through dry 
places seeking rest and findeth it not, (then) he saith : 
I will return unto mine house whence I came out; 
and when he is come he findeth it empty (and) swept 
and garnished. ‘Then he goeth and taketh to him 
seven spirits more evil than himself, and they enter 
in and dwell there, and the last state of that man 
becometh worse than the first. 


30. 
(They said): We would see from thee a sign. But 


he said: An evil and adulterous generation seeketh 
after a sign, and a sign shall not be given to it except 
the sign of Jonah. For as Jonah became a sign to 
the Ninevites, so shall also the Son of man be to this 
generation. ‘The men of Nineveh shall stand up in 


TRANSLATION OF Q 267 


the judgment against this generation, and shall con- 
demn it, because they repented at the preaching of 
Jonah, and behold here is more than Jonah. ‘The 
queen of the south shall stand up in the judgment 
against this generation and shall condemn it, because 
she came from the ends of the earth to hear the 
wisdom of Solomon, and behold here is more than 
Solomon. 


40. 


Unto what is the kingdom of God like? and to 
what shall I liken it? It is like unto a grain of 
mustard seed which a man took and sowed in his 
field, and it grew and becometh a tree, and the birds 
of the heaven nested in its branches. 

(And again he said): To what shall I liken the 
kingdom of God? It is like unto leayen which a 
woman took and hid in three measures of meal until 
the whole was leavened. 


44. 


He that exalteth himself shall be abased, and he 
that humbleth himself shall be exalted. 


42. 
I say unto you: They shall come from the east 


and from the west, and shall sit at meat with Abra- 
ham and Isaac and Jacob in the kingdom of God; 


268 THE SAYINGS OF JESUS 


but the sons of the kingdom shall be cast out; there 
shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth. 


48. 

What think ye? Ifa man have an hundred sheep, 
and one of them has strayed, will he not leave the 
ninety and nine upon the mountains, and having set 
out doth he not seek that which is strayed? And if 
he happeneth to find it, (verily) I say unto you that 
he rejoiceth over it more than over the ninety and 
nine which had not strayed. 


53. 


It is necessary that occasions of stumbling should 
come, yet Woe unto the man through whom the 
occasion of stumbling cometh. 


54. 

If thy brother sinneth, rebuke him; if he hear 
thee, thou hast gained thy brother. ... If my 
brother sinneth against me, how oft shall I forgive 
him? Until seven times? Jesus saith unto him: 1 
say unto thee, not until seven times, but until seventy 
times seven. 


55. 


If ye have faith so great as a grain of mustard 
seed, ye shall say to this mountain: Be removed from 
hence thither, and it shall be removed. - 


TRANSLATION OF Q 269 


33, 43. 


. They bind together heavy burdens and lay 
them upon men’s shoulders, and they themselves will 
not touch them with a finger. 

Woe unto you, Pharisees! for ye shut the king- 
dom of God before men; for ye yourselves enter not 
in, nor even do ye suffer them that are entering in to 
enter. 

Woe unto you, Pharisees! for ye tithe mint, anise, 
and cummin, and neglect the weightier matters of the 
law, a and mercy. 

. Now ye Pharisees, ye cleanse the outside of 
the ἘΞ and platter, but within they are full of extor- 
tion and excess. 

Woe unto you, for ye are as tombs which appear 
not, and the men that walk over them know it not. 

(Woe unto you, Pharisees! for ye are like unto 
tombs that have been whitened which outwardly 
indeed appear beautiful, but within are full of dead 
men’s bones and all uncleanness.) 

Woe unto you! For ye build the tombs of the 
prophets and say: If we had been in the days of 
our fathers we would not have been partakers with 
them in the blood of the prophets. So that ye 
bear witness against yourselves that ye are sons 
of those who slew the prophets (now fulfil the 
measure of your fathers)! 

Wherefore also the Wisdom of God said: I send 
to you prophets and wise men and scribes; some of them 
ye will slay and persecute; that there may come upon 


you all the blood shed upon the earth from the blood of 


270 THE SAYINGS OF JESUS 


Abel to the blood of Zacharias, whom ye slew between 
the temple and the altar. Verily I say unto you, All 
these things will come upon this generation. O Jerusalem! 
Jerusalem! which killeth the prophets and stoneth those 
that are sent to her! How often would I have gathered 
thy children together, even as a@ hen (gathereth) her 
chickens under her wings, and ye would not. Behold 
your house is left unto you desolate. (For) I say unto 
you: Ye shall not see me from henceforth until 
(it shall come when) ye say: Blessed is he that 
cometh in the name of the Lord. 


56. 


If then they say to you: Lo! he is in the desert! 
Go ye not forth. Lo! he is in the secret chambers! 
Believe it not. For as the lightning cometh forth 
from the east and is seen even unto the west, so 
shall be the coming of the Son of man. Where- 
soever the carcase is, there will the eagles be 
gathered together. : 

As were the days of Noah, so shall be the coming 
of the Son of man. For as in the days before 
the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying 
and giving in marriage, until the day that Noah 
entered into the ark, and they knew not until 
the flood came and took them all away, so shall 
be the coming of the Son of man. There shall 
be two in the field, one is taken and one is left; 
two women shall be grinding at the mill, one is 
taken and one is left. 


TRANSLATION OF 9 271 


37. 


But know this, that if the master of the house 
knew in what watch the thief would come, he would 
have watched and would not have suffered his house 
to have been broken through. (Wherefore be ye 
also ready, for at an hour that ye think not the 
Son of man cometh.) Who then is the faithful 
and wise servant whom his lord hath set over his 
household to give them their meat in due season ? 
Blessed is that servant whom his lord when he 
cometh shall find so doing. Verily I say unto you, 
that he shall set him over all that he hath. But 
if that (evil) servant shall say in his heart: My 
lord tarrieth, and shall begin to smite his fellow 
servants, and shall eat and drink with the drunken, 
the lord of that servant shall come in a day when 
he expecteth not, and in an hour when he knoweth 
not, and shall cut him asunder and appoint his 
portion. with the hypocrites. 


58. 


To him (to everyone) that hath it shall be given, 
and he shall have abundance; but from him that hath 
not, even that which he hath shall be taken away. 


59. 
Ye who follow me... shall sit upon twelve 
thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel. 


1 Perhaps the parables of the Great Supper and the Talents 
stood in Q (vide supra, pp. 119 ff.), 


272 ‘THE SAYINGS OF JESUS 


EXCURSUS I 


On THE Sayines ΙΝ St. Mart. xi. 25-27 (Sr. Luxe 
x. 21, 22) anp Sr. Marr. xi. 28, 29. 


THE peculiar contents of these sayings justifies us 
in subjecting their text, the most ancient history of 
their tradition, and their significance, to a minute 
examination. This is the more necessary in that 
in the last years it has been asserted with increas- 
ing confidence that these sayings are not genuine. 
This question cannot be brought nearer to its solu- 
tion without the closest investigation. The exegesis 
of these passages, which had come to a standstill, 
has been set in motion again by the researches of 
Schmiedel and Wellhausen, which afford us most 
valuable hints.* 


1 Of. Credner, “ Beitrige z. Hinl. i. ἃ. bibl. Schriften,’ 1832, i. 
5. 248 ff. ; Semisch, ‘‘ Die apostolischen Denkwiirdigkeiten des M. 
Justin,” 1848, 5. 364 ff.; Hilgenfeld, ‘‘ Kritische Unters. iiber die 
Evv. Justins usw.’’ 1850, 5. 201 ff.; Volckmar, ‘‘ Das Ev. Marcions 
1852,” s. 75 f€.; Westcott, ‘Canon of N. T.4, 1875, p. 133 ff.; 
‘«‘Supernatural Religion’,” i. p. 401 ff. ; E. Abbot, “‘ The Author- 
ship of the Fourth Gospel,’’ 1880, p. 91 ff. ; Zahn, “‘ Tatian,” 1881, 
5. 148 f.; ‘*‘ Kanonsgesch.” i. 5. 555 f.; Bousset, ““ Evangelienzitate 
Justins ἃ. M., 1891,᾽ s. 100 ff.; Resch, ‘‘Texte u. Unters.,’” Bd. 
10, 2, 1895, 5. 196 ff.; H. Holtzmann, “‘ Lehrb. ἃ. NTlichen Theol.,”’ 
i. 1897, 5. 272 ff.; H. Holtzmann, ‘‘ Die Synoptiker,” 3. Aufl., 1901, 
5. 238 ff.; Wellhausen, ‘‘Matth.,” 1904; Schmiedel, ‘Das 4, 
Evangelium,” 1906, s. 48 f.; the editions of St. Matthew and St, 
Luke by Blass. The verses are treated as a hymn by Brandt (“ Ey. 
Geschichte,” 1893, 5. 562, 576 f.), Pfleiderer (‘‘ Urchristentum,” 
1902, 1.2 5. 435 f£., 576, 667 ff.), Loisy, and others. 


EXCURSUS I 


273 


If we in the first place confine ourselves to ascer- 
taining the text of the sayings according to the Greek 
manuscripts, there is scarcely any doubt as to the result 


we arrive at. 


St. Matthew. 

͵, Ἐξομολογοῦμαί σοι, 
πάτερ, κύριε τοῦ οὐρανοῦ 
καὶ τῆς γῆς, ὅτι ἔκρυψας 
ταῦτα ἀπὸ σοφῶν καὶ 
συνετῶν καὶ ἀπεκάλυψας 
αὐτὰ νηπίοις, ναί, ὁ πατήρ, 
ὅτι οὕτως εὐδοκία ἐγένετο 
ἔμπροσθέν σου. 

πάντα μοι παρεδόθη 
ὑπὸ τοῦ πατρός [μου], καὶ 
οὐδεὶς ἐπιγινώσκει τὸν υἱὸν 
εἰ μὴ ὁ πατήρ, οὐδὲ τὸν 


, ἢ , > 
TAaTEpa τις επιγινώσκει ει 


5.18 ελ Lim 9A , 
μὴ ὃ υἷος Kal ᾧ εαν βούλη- 
e ex” 9 , 
ται O υἱος ἀποκαλύψαι. 


μου om. &.* 


The first saying runs as follows :— 


St. Luke. 

| Ἐξομολογοῦμαί Tol, 
πάτερ, κύριε τοῦ οὐρανοῦ 
καὶ τῆς γῆν». ὅτι ἀπέκρυψας 
ταῦτα ἀπὸ σοφῶν καὶ 
συνετῶν καὶ ἀπεκάλυψας 
αὐτὰ νηπίοις. ναί, ὁ πατήρ: 
ὅτι οὕτως ἐγένετο εὐδοκία 
ἔμπροσθέν σου. 

πάντα μοι παρεδόθη 
ὑπὸ τοῦ πατρός [μου]; καὶ 
οὐδεὶς γινώσκει τίς ἐστιν ὁ 
υἱὸς εἰ μὴ ὁ πατήρ: καὶ τίς 
: : Ae ee? 
ἐστιν ὃ πατὴρ εἰ μὴ ὁ ULOS 
καὶ ᾧ ἂν βούληται ὁ υἱὸς 
ἀποκαλύψαι. 


πάτερ om. FY — εὐδο- 

, ,’ , . 

kia ἐγένετο offerunt multi 

et boni testes — παρεδόθη 

wot nonnulli Codd.; μοι 

παραδέδοται ΚΙΙ-. azo 
e \ 

pro ὑπο D — μου om. Ὁ 

-- τίς ἐστιν ὁ πατήρ. .. 

, ᾽ e ee? 

τίς ἐστιν o υἱὸς Ὁ and one 

cursive. 


974 THE SAYINGS OF JESUS 


We accordingly see that St. Matthew and St. Luke 
must have used the same source, namely Q, in a similar 
recension and translation. The text in St. Matthew, 
in the two places where it differs from that of St. 
Luke, seems to be preferable, for it is the simpler 
(ἔκρυψας: ἀπέκρυψας, ἐπιγινώσκει τὸν πατέρα» γιν- 
ώσκέι τίς ἐστιν ὁ πατήρ). 

Also the NEA sation to the saying shows a 
common source. 

St. Matthew: "Ev ἐκείνῳ τῷ καιρῷ ἀποκριθεὶς ὁ 
᾿Ιησοῦς εἶπεν " 

St. Luke: Ἐν αὐτῇ τῇ ὥρᾳ ἠγαλλιάσατο τῷ 
πνεύματι τῷ ἁγίῳ καὶ εἶπεν" 

Here also it is certain that St. Matthew is to be 
preferred; for (ἐν) αὐτῇ τῇ ὥρᾳ is a favourite ex- 
pression with St. Luke (seven times), and is intended 
to be more exact than ἐν ἐκείνῳ τῷ καιρῷ: though it 
is true that the latter phrase is found again twice in 
St. Matthew. Likewise ἠγαλλιάσατο (ἀγαλλίασις) is 
of frequent occurrence in St. Luke (seven times in the 
gospel and the Acts, once in St. Matthew); lastly, 
the addition of “7@ πνεύματι τῷ ἁγίῳ " is genuinely 
Lukan. The original therefore ran: “ At this time 
Jesus answered and said.” But the situation pre- 
supposed is different in St. Matthew and St. Luke. 
In the former the thanksgiving stands in contrast 
with the denunciation of Chorazin, Bethsaida, and 
Capernaum: Jesus had, after all, found souls sym- 
pathetic to His teaching, and for this He offers 
thanks to the Father. In St. Luke also the de- 


1 εὐδοκία ἐγένετο ἐμπροσθέν cov is a peculiarly obvious Hebraism ; 
ἐξομολογοῦμαί σοι also is poor Greek. 


EXCURSUS I Q75 


nunciation of the Galilean cities comes indeed shortly 
before (x. 12-15); but in between, this evangelist 
inserts the record which the disciples returning from 
their mission give concerning their success, and con- 
nects with this the thanksgiving of our Lord. 


St. Matthew connects the second saying with the 
first, so that we must suppose that he regarded it as 
the continuation of the first saying. It is wanting 
in St. Luke. According to the Greek manuscripts 
it runs as follows :— 


Δεῦτε πρός με πάντες 
οἱ κοπιῶντες καὶ πεφορτισ- 
μένοι; κἀγὼ ἀναπαύσω 
e ἴω Ε Ἁ ? 
ὑμᾶς. ἄρατε τὸν ζυγόν 

9 5 e ra 4 =F 
μου ἐφ ὑμᾶς καὶ μάθετε 
[ἀπ᾿ ἐμοῦ]: ὅτι πραΐς εἶμι 
καὶ ταπεινὸς τῇ καρδίᾳ; καὶ 
εὑρήσετε ἀνάπαυσιν ταῖς 
ψυχαῖς ὑ ὑμῶν. ὁ γὰρ ζυγός 
μου χρηστὸς καὶ τὸ φορ- 
τίον μου ἐλαφρόν ἐστιν. 

πεφορτισμ. ἐστέ D 
(ital. Vulg.) — ἀπ᾽ ἐμοῦ 
om. δὲ. ὃ 


Both sayings—the second in higher degree — 
have a poetical rhythm, and in their construction 
remind us of the poetical form of sayings in the 
Psalms and Prophets; but from this point of view 
they are not unique among the sayings of our Lord— 
indeed, not a few sayings have a similar form. 


276 THE SAYINGS OF JESUS 


II 


Is the form that has been arrived at above really 
the most ancient attainable form of the two sayings, 
so that we may at once proceed to exegesis? In the 
case of the second saying, and of the first half of the 
first saying, the question is to be answered in the 
affirmative—the second saying in the earliest times 
was much less often quoted than one might expect— 
but not in the case of the second half of the first 
saying; here we are rather led by indirect tradition 
(partly also by the Versions) to an older form of text, 
whether it be an older form of the text of St. Matthew 
and St. Luke or a form which is independent of them. 
We are here in the fortunate position of knowing the 
wording of the saying (the whole or some portion 
of it) as it was read by Marcion, by the Marcosians, 
by Justin, Tatian, Irenzeus, Tertullian, Hippolytus, 
Clement of Alexandria, Origen, the Clementine 
Homilies, and by Eusebius. We have in addition 
the ancient versions. 

We shall first consider the first half of the saying, 
and shall begin with Marcion. Here we have certain 
knowledge that we have before us in the main, not 
extra-canonical tradition, but the text of St. Luke; 
though it is true we also know that Marcion has 
altered many passages in accordance with his own 
peculiar tendency. Marcion read (according to Tert. 
iv. 25, supported in important points by Epiphanius) : 
εὐχαριστῶ (σοι Epiph.) (καὶ ἐξομολογοῦμαι; Tert.), 
κύριε τοῦ οὐρανοῦ; ὅτι ἅπερ ἣν κρυπτὰ σοφοῖς καὶ 
συνετοῖς, ἀπεκάλυψας νηπίοις. ναί, ὁ πατήρ; ὅτι οὕτως 


EXCURSUS 1 277 


ἐγένετο εὐδοκία ἔμπροσθέν cov [the last six words are 
not directly attested for Marcion, but follow from the 
vat ὁ πατήρ which Epiphanius gives, and from the 
silence of both authorities as to alterations at this 
point]. Marcion’s text differs from the canonical 
(1) in the addition of εὐχαριστῶ καί, (2) in the 
absence of πάτερ; (3) in the absence of καὶ τῆς γῆς» 
(4) in reading ἅπερ ἦν κρυπτά (hence καί and αὐτά 
must also have been wanting). Numbers (3) and (4) 
are alterations due to tendency; for the God of 
Marcion must not be “Lord of the earth,” neither 
did He hide the true saving knowledge, but it lay 
hid of itself. On the other hand, (1) and (2) cannot 
be explained as due to the teaching of Marcion. 

Of these four variants the first (εὐχαριστῶ, but with- 
out ἐξομολογοῦμαι) is found once in Epiph. Her. 
40, 7, and perhaps also in Tatian, but never elsewhere. 
In Tatian, however, the word is doubtful. Ephraem 
writes (“Evang. Concord.,” p. 116, Meesinger): 
«“Gratias ago tibi, pater ccelestis—in Greco dicit: 
Gratias ago tibi, deus pater, domine cceli et terre.” 
In respect to the first word Ephraem therefore noticed 
no difference of text. The reading εὐχαριστῶ could 
easily have arisen, because ἐξομολογοῦμαι was not very 
intelligible—indeed because it seemed even objection- 
able. Εὐχαριστῶ was a word that naturally sug- 
gested itself and took its place, as in Epiphanius. 
Cf. Orig., « De. Orat.,” 5: τὸ « ἐξομολογοῦμαι" ἴσον 
ἐστὶ τῷ “εὐχαριστῶ. The second variant (om. 
πάτερ) is also found in the canonical Lukan text. in 
FW (vide supra); πάτερ is also wanting in Clem Hom. 
xvili. 15; the text there (Simon Magus speaks) is, 


278 THE SAYINGS OF JESUS 


however, a mixture of the canonical text and that of 
Marcion (vide infra), so that it cannot count as an 
independent witness. The omission in FW is pro- 
bably only accidental’—it is wonderful that in the 
MSS. πάτερ has not more frequently fallen out before 
κύριε; thus Marcion stands alone with his omission. 
We can scarcely assign any weight to it. The third 
variant (om. τῆς γῆς) is found also in Tatian, who 
besides omits κύριε (this very κύριε----θαὶ not τῆς γῆς 
—is also wanting in Clem. Hom. viii. 6, where St. 
Peter speaks). The absence of τῆς γῆς in Tatian is 
not accidental ; he has substituted the usual expression 
(ς πάτερ ovpave”—for this was his version—for the 
fuller but rarer phrase. There can be no connection 
here either with Marcion or with Clem. Hom. viii. 6, 
where the absence of κύριε is probably only a mistake. 
Thus Marcion’s κύριε τοῦ οὐρανοῦ may be regarded as 
due to tendency, while Tatian’s πάτερ οὐράνιε may be 
described as nothing more than a gloss.2, The fourth 
variant is also found in Clem. Hom. xviii. 15; Simon 
Magus quotes ἅπερ ἣν κρυπτὰ σοφοῖς, ἀπεκάλυψας 
αὐτὰ KTA., and in the context is therefore corrected by 
St. Peter, Elsewhere in the Homilies Simon Magus 
adduces elements characteristic of Marcion; he here 
quotes according to the text of Marcion. 


2 It ought not to be asserted that πάτερ is wanting in ‘‘a” 
(Vercell.), since at this place a small gap (an undecipherable 
passage?) occurs in ‘‘a.” [This gap occurs only in St. Luke; in 
St. Matthew, according to Belsheim, ‘‘a”’ reads “pater.” Note by 
Translator. ] 

2 It is possible that Tatian, whose system required a distinction 
to be made between God and a Demiurgus, changed πάτερ, κύριε τ, 
οὐρ. K. τ. Ὕ. Into πάτερ οὐράνιε. 


EXCURSUS I 279 


The other variants in the first half of the saying 
are as follows :— 


ἐξομολογήσομαι: the Marcosians in Iren. i. 20, 3 
(perhaps in accordance with Sirach li. 1; of no im- 
portance)." 


domine pater: c.e.f.ff.2 i. (of no importance, be- 
cause the transposition was one that easily suggested 


itself). 


deus pater domine: the reading which, accord- 
ing to Ephraem (/.c.), was offered by the Greek ; but 
this is most improbable, seeing that none of the 
manuscripts that have come down to us present this 
reading. Yet in Clement of Alexandria (« Ped.” i. 
6, 32) we read: πάτερ: ὁ θεὸς τοῦ οὐρανοῦ καὶ τῆς 
γῆς» but this is probably only a free quotation.” 


οὐρανῶν καὶ γῆς: Epiph. Le. τῆς γῆς καὶ τῶν 
οὐρανῶν : ὃ the Marcosians (in Epiph. the plural is 
probably an oversight, but scarcely so with the 
Marcosians). 


ταῦτα : wanting among the Marcosians, but only in 
the Greek text (of no importance); L. reads αὐτά. 


καὶ συνετῶν *: wanting in Syr. Sin. (but only in the 
text of St. Matthew), in “e” and in Clem. Hom. 


1 The Latin translation reads: “ Confiteor.” 

2 “ἐ πάτερ κύριε᾽᾽ was also understood as an Hendiaduoin; thus 
the heathen in “ Macarius Magnus,” iv, 7, writes: ὅτι οὐρανοῦ καὶ 
γῆς πατήρ ἐστιν ὁ θεός, ὑπὸ τοῦ υἱοῦ ὡμολόγηται, ““ Πάτερ κύριε τοῦ 
οὐρανοῦ καὶ τῆς γῆς" λέγοντος. 

3 So in the Latin text ; the Greek has the usual order, 

4 "Amd συνετῶν καὶ σοφῶν: D. ἀπὸ σοφῶν καὶ δυνατῶν : 1* (both 
of no importance). 


980 THE SAYINGS OF JESUS 


(dts) ; but in Clem. Hom. viii. 6 πρεσβυτέρων Ἶ stands 
in its place, and in both places in Clem. Hom. the 
word θηλάζουσιν occurs with νηπίοις» so that the text 
ran: σοφῶν πρεσβυτέρων. . . νηπίοις θηλάζουσιν. 
The omission of « καὶ συνετῶν " is explained from the 
circumstance that the following parallel clause has only - 
one substantive; it is thus due to reflection. This 
omission is presupposed by the reading of the Clemen- 
tine Homilies; it was felt that in σοφοί . . . νήπιοι 
the contrast was not striking enough, and therefore 
πρεσβύτεροι was (in a truly mechanical fashion) added 
to σοφοί, so as to make the contrast exact; then it 
was felt that a second word was required with νήπιοι: 
and so θηλάζοντες was chosen (from St. Matt. xxi. 
16). We therefore learn nothing here in regard to 
the original text. The formal incongruence only goes 
to prove that this original text really read σοφῶν καὶ 
συνετῶν . « . νηπίοις. 


αὐτά: wanting in Tatian (of no importance). 


ova, ὁ πατήρ μου: the Marcosians in Irenzus (ova 
is found again in the New Testament in St. Mark xv. 
29); they also omit the following οὕτως, reading ὅτι 
ἔμπροσθέν cov εὐδοκία μοι [wanting in the Latin} 
ἐγένετο. In spite of these differences we may not 
assume a translation-variant in this verse, seeing that 
the Marcosians also had εὐδοκία. We cannot tell how 


1 Only one manuscript prefixes kal. 

2 It is noteworthy that the heathen in ‘‘ Macarius Magnus” 
(iv. 9) quotes first in exact accordance with St. Matthew: “ καὶ 
ἀπεκάλυψας αὐτὰ νηπίοις, but then continues: εἰ ἀπὸ τῶν σοφῶν 
κέκρυπται τὰ μυστήρια, νηπίοις δὲ καὶ θηλαζομένοις ἐκκέχυται. 


EXCURSUS I 281 


these readings arose, but as they are quite isolated we 
can scarcely assign any weight to them. 


γέγονεν (for ἐγένετο): only Epiph. Her. 65, 6 
(of no importance). 


Result: The first half of the first saying is trans- 
mitted by St. Matthew (and St. Luke) in its most ancient 
attaimable form, also the address: ratep, κύριε τοῦ 
οὐρανοῦ καὶ τῆς γῆς; is most probably more ancient 
than all other variants. 


Again the introduction to the second half of the 
first saying presents a few variants. It is of im- 
portance that both Justin (Dial. 100) and Hippolytus 
(c. Noét. 6) give παραδέδοται for παρεδόθη. This 
variant lies in a direction which we shall notice 
later on ; ὁ aims at translating an historical action into 
the sphere of the timeless and transcendental. For ὑπὸ 
(τοῦ πατρός) D (in St. Luke) reads ἀπό, Hippolytus 
παρά (this is unimportant). Again, while « μου " after 
τοῦ πατρός is wanting in only one of the uncials of 
St. Matthew and St. Luke (and besides in one cursive 
of St. Matthew), it is, on the other hand, wanting in 
quotations by Marcion, Justin, the Marcosians (Latin), 
Hilary, and Victorinus. In the versions it is also want- 
ing in Syr.™e of St. Matthew, and in a.c.l.Syr.*. 
of St. Luke. Hence it follows with great probability 
that this word was originally wanting in St. Matthew 
and St. Luke, but was inserted in the text already 
at a very early date. Here again the motive of 
insertion may well have been similar to that of 


1 So also Codd. ΚΠ, the cursives 60, 254, p%*T, w*¢r, and three 
Colbertine MSS. (all only in St, Luke), 


282 THE SAYINGS OF JESUS 


the variant παραδέδοται, which however has not made 
its way into the MSS. that have come down to us. 

In the remaining part of the saying two main 
streams of tradition may be distinguished, according 
as: (1) either the aorist ἔγνω or the present γινώσκει 
(ἐπιγινώσκει OY οἶδεν) is used, and (2) either “to 
know the Father” or “to know the Son” stands 
first. Differences, moreover, occur in the last clause 
(καὶ ᾧ ἂν βούληται κτλ.) Irenzeus already noticed 
the first point. He asserts that the aorist ἔγνω 
was an heretical forgery, vide iv. 1: « Nemo cognoscit 
filium nisi pater, neque patrem quis cognosit nisi filius, 
et cui voluerit filius revelare. sic et Mattheeus posuit 
et Lucas similiter et Marcus idem ipsum ;? Johannes 


1 The remaining variants in this verse are not of much import- 
ance. Instead of καὶ οὐδείς... οὐδὲ... τις (St. Matthew, so also 
Iren. iv. 6, 1; Clem. Hom. xviii. 13 [bis], the disciple of 
Marcion in Adamant.), or καὶ οὐδείς. .. καί (St. Luke, and besides, 
e.g. the Marcosians in Irenzus, i. 20, 3; Marcion in Tertullian, 
Epiph.), we also find :— 

οὔτε Tis... οὔτ᾽ αὖ τις (Euseb. *‘ Hist. Eccl.,” i. 2); and, moreover, 
in the first clause— é 

μηδείς (Clem., ‘‘ Strom.,” v. 84; Euseb., “ De Eccl. Theol.,” i. 12, 
Euseb., ‘‘ Eclog.,”’ i. 12) ; or 

οὐδεὶς γάρ (e.g. “Clem., Strom.,” vii. 109 ; Euseb., ‘* De Eccl. Theol.,” 
i. 15, 16); and in the second clause— 

οὐδέ [without ris] (Justin [ter]; Marcion in Irenzus, iv. 6, 1; 
Irenzeus [bis], Clem. Alex. [semel], Epiph. [67s]. 

ὡς οὐδὲ... . τις (Clem. Hom. xvii. 4; xviii. 4, 20). 

οὕτω καὶ οὐδείς (Euseb., ‘‘ Demonstr.,” iv. 3, 13), 

μηδὲ... τις (Euseb., ‘‘ De Eccl. Theol.,” i. 12 [Marcellus}), 

καὶ οὐδείς (Epiph. [ter]; Euseb., ‘‘ Demonstr.,” v. 1). 

It is a peculiarity of Eusebius that he writes thrice: εἰ μὴ μόνος 
ὁ γεννήσας αὐτὸν πατήρ (““ Hist. Eccl.,” i. 2; ‘‘ Demonstr.” iv, 3, 13; 
ἐς Πρ Eccl. Theol.,”’ i. 12). This looks like an amplification originat- 
ing in a Syrian text. The Syrians loved such amplifications. 

2 [renzeus here makes a mistake; St. Mark has not the saying. 


EXCURSUS I 988 


enim preterit locum hunc. hi autem qui peritiores 
apostolis volunt esse, sic describunt: memo cognovit 
patrem nisi filius, nec filiwm nisi pater et cur voluerit 
jiltus revelare, et interpretantur, quasi a nullo cog- 
nitus sit verus deus ante domini nostri adventum, 
et eum deum qui a prophetis sit annunciatus, 
dicunt non esse patrem Christi.”1 Here Irenzus 
quite rightly feels that the sense of “cognovit” 
(ἔγνω) is different from that of « cognoscit ” (γινώσκει); 
but his assertion that the reading ἔγνω is an hereti- 
cal corruption is quite mistaken, as will shortly 


appear. 
I shall first give a list of the passages in 
which ἔγνω is found, and “knowing the Father” 


stands first, then of the quotations with ἔγνω 


1 This passage is strangely misunderstood by the critics (even 
by Zahn, Tatian, 5. 149; ‘‘ Kanonsgesch.,” i. 5, 555 f.), as if the 
censure of Irenzus were directed against the precedence in order 
of the clause ‘‘to know the Father.’ This was to him a matter 
of complete indifference (he himself twice quotes in this order) ; 
he is only concerned with the difference of ‘‘cognoscit’”’ and 
‘‘cognovit.” Again, this passage is usually referred to the 
Marcosians, because Irenzus in Book I, (20, 3) has quoted the 
verse in the version of the Marcosians. But in the context (vide 
iv. 1 ff.; iv. 6, 2; here he is quoting Justin’s work against 
Marcion) he is dealing with the followers of Marcion. These 
heretics are doubtless in the forefront of his mind ; though he may 
also be thinking of the Marcosians, who had in the main the same 
reading of this passage as Marcion. Moreover, the two quotations, 
i, 20, 3 and iv. 6, 1, vary somewhat from one another. Where 
Irenzus gives the Marcosian version of the saying (i. 20, 3), he 
writes: καὶ τὸν υἱὸν εἰ μὴ ὁ πατὴρ καὶ ᾧ ἂν ὁ vids ἀποκαλύψῃ (so also 
the Old Latin); in our passage he represents the heretics as 
reading: ‘‘ Nee filium nisi pater, et cui voluerit filius revelare,” 
This ‘‘ nec”’ is also given by the disciple of Marcion in Adaman- 
tius, 


284 THE SAYINGS OF JESUS 


and with “knowing the Son” at the  begin- 
ning : 1 — 


4 A ’ \ «7 . 

ἔγνω τὸν πατέρα . . . τὸν υἱόν (without a verb): 
Justin, Apol., i. 63 [ bes] ; Marcosians in Iren., 
i. 20, 3; Marcion in Iren., iv. 6, 1. 

» ἢ ’ y+ 4 e? . 2 

ἔγνω Tov πατέρα. . . ἔγνω Tov υἱὸν: ‘Tatian; 
Euseb., Demonstr., iv. 8, 13; Euseb., De- 
monstr., v. 1; Euseb., De Eccl. Theol., i. 12 

(probably also Orig., De Princ., ii. 6, 1; 
“novit . . . novit”). 

4 ‘ ’ , A e/ bd 

ἔγνω τὸν πατέρα . . . γινώσκει Tov viov: the dis- 
ciple of Marcion in Adamantius (p. 44, ed. 
van de Sande). 

+ \ , εἶ A e/ 

ἔγνω TOV πατέρα . . . γνώῃ ποτὲ TOV υἱόν: Euseb., 
Hist. Eccel., i. 2. 

ἔγνω τὸν πατέρα. . . oldey τὸν υἱόν : Clem. 
Hom., xvii. 4; xviii. 4, 13 [ dis], 20. 

[ἔγνω τὸν πατέρα . . . without the parallel clause 
(thus an imperfect quotation): Clem. Alex., 
Protrept., i. 10; Pedag., i. 5, 20 and i. 8; 

1 A dagger marks the passages in which only one verb is found ; 

the passages in which the quotation is imperfect—i.e. where only 
one of the two clauses is given—are included within brackets. I 
have paid no attention to the difference between τὸν πατέρα and 


τίς ἐστιν ὁ πατήρ, because the more circumstantial phrase practically 
never occurs. 

2 The order is quite certain; it is not certain that Mcesinger’s 
‘“‘novit’’ presupposes éyyw.—The ‘‘novit”’ which is found in a few 
Old Latin MSS. of St. Luke certainly Ξε ἔγνω ; for the great majority 
of these MSS. give (in St. Luke) ‘‘scit.’”’ Codex Veronensis (b) 
forms one of the minority, it reads here: ‘‘Nemo novit patrem 
nisi filius et que... bit [=novit] fili...nisi pater... voluerit, 
&c.”’ (Perhaps for ‘“‘que’’ we should read ‘‘ qui[s].”—vide ‘*q.”’) 
The reading ἔγνω is also attested by Cod. Vercell. (a)—for the 
reading here of this important codex vide infra—as well as hy ‘‘q.” 


EXCURSUS I 285 


Strom., v. 84, vii. 58; Origen, Selecta in Ps. 
[T. 11, p. 393, Lomm.]; c. Cels., ii. 71, vii. 
44; on St. John, p. (20), 49, 248, 301, 334, 
474. f. (ed. Preuschen), &c.;+ Concil. Antioch. 
c. Paulum Samos.; Euseb., Eclog., i. 12.; 
Tertull. adv. Marce., 11. 27 (cognovit); De 
Prescr., 21 (novit)]. 


ἡ ἔγνῶ τὸν υἱόν... τὸν πατέρα (without a verb): 
Clem. Alex., Pedag., i. 9, 88: Strom., 
i. 178; Orig., c. Cels., vi. 17. 

[ἔγνω τὸν υἱόν... without the parallel clause 
(thus an imperfect quotation): Orig. on St. 
John, p. 4741. 

olde Tov υἱόν... ἔγνω τὸν πατέρα: Epiph., 


Heer., 65, 6. 


Now follow quotations without ἔγνω. Again we 
first give those in which “knowing the Father” 
comes at the beginning :— 

T γινώσκει τὸν πατέρα. . . τὸν υἱόν (without a 

verb): Justin, Dial., 100. 
t γινώσκει τίς ἐστιν ὁ πατήρ . . . Tis ὁ υἱός (with- 
out a verb): Marcion [according to Tertull., 
Iv. 25, but according to Iren. and Adamant. 
ἔγνω; vide supra, Cod. U of St. Luke. 
[γινώσκει τὸν πατέρα ... without the parallel 
clause (thus an imperfect quotation): Clem. 
Alex., Strom., vii. 109.] 


1 Ἔγνω is also found in other quotations in Origen and even in 
later Alexandrians (e.g. Alexander and Didymus), 
2 Justin here expressly says: ἐν τῷ εὐαγγελίῳ γέγραπται εἰπών. 


286 THE SAYINGS OF JESUS 


t ἐπιγινώσκει τὸν πατέρα .. . Tov υἱόν (without a 
verb): Iren., ii. 6, 1, iv. 6, 3; fragm. Syr., 
xv. (ed. Harvey). 

[ἐπιγινώσκει τὸν πατέρα . . . without the parallel 
clause (thus an imperfect quotation): Clem. 
Alex., Dives, 8; Iren., iv. 6, 6]. 

olde τὸν πατέρα . . . olde τὸν υἱόν : Epiph., Her., — 
69, 43; Ancor., 11. 

t οἶδε τὸν πατέρα . . . τὸν υἱόν (without a verb): 
Epiph., Her., 74, 4; 76,1, Nr. 29; 76,1, Nr. 
32. 

[οἷδε τὸν πατέρα . . . without the parallel clause 
(thus an imperfect quotation): Euseb., De 
Eccl. Theol., i. 16."] 


T γινώσκει τίς ἐστιν ὁ υἱός. . . Tis ὁ πατήρ (with- 
out a verb): St. Luke (with exception of the 
Codd. U, a, b).? 

ἐπιγινώσκει TOV υἱόν. .. ἐπιγινώσκει τὸν πατέρα: 
St. Matt. (so also Syr.-; only one cursive 
reverses the order); Iren., iv. 6, 1. 

Ἷ ἐπιγινώσκει τὸν υἱόν. . . τὸν πατέρα (without a 
verb): Iren., iv. 6, 7. 

olde τὸν υἱόν. » « οἶδε τὸν πατέρα: Epiph., Her., 
54, 4. 

t οἷδε τὸν υἱόν. . . τὸν πατέρα (without a verb): 


Epiph., Her., 64,9; 76, 1, Nr. 7. 


1 Variations in Eusebius are also brought about by his use of 
the text of Marcellus. 

2 A peculiar variant occurs in Syr.sim. of St. Luke: “ And who 
knoweth the Son save the Father, and who knoweth the Father 
save the Son?” Cf. the Latin codex “‘q”: ‘Et quis novit 
patrem ?’’ and perhaps also ‘‘b.” 


EXCURSUS I 287 


Codex Vercellensis (a) here stands quite by itself. 
In the teat of St. Luke (not in St. Matthew) it omits 
the “knowing the Son” altogether, and reads: « Omnia 
mihi tradita sunt a patre, et nemo novit quis est 
pater nisi filius et cuicumque voluerit filius, revelavit.” 


Before we give our verdict on these readings, 
let us bring together the variants which occur in 
the concluding clause :— 

1. καὶ @ ἂν βόυληται ὁ υἱὸς ἀποκαλύψαι : St. Luke, 
St. Matthew, Iren. iv. 6, 1, &c. &c. (Syr.* in 
St. Matthew does not read otherwise). 

2. καὶ @ ἂν βόυληται ἀποκάλυψαι αὐτὸς ἀποκαλ- 
ύπτει ϑ'υ7γ εἶτ; cf. «Et cuicumque voluerit filius 
revelavit ” (a). 

3. καὶ ᾧ ἂν 6 υἱὸς ἀποκαλύψῃ: Marcion; the 
Marcosians; Clem. Alex. (septies); Origen (scape); 
Tert. De Prescr., 21 («revelavit”); Euseb., Eclog., 
i. 12; Concil. Antioch.; Epiphan. (nonnull. loc.). 

4. καὶ ᾧ ἂν ἀποκαλύψῃ: Epiph. [sxpius], both 
after “ knowing the Father” and « knowing the Son.” 

5. καὶ ᾧ ἂν αὐτὸς ἀποκαλύψῃ: Nicetas (after 
ςς knowing the Son”). 

6. καὶ ᾧ ἂν ὁ υἱὸς ἀποκαλύπτει: Epiph., Her., 
74, 4. 

7. καὶ οἷς ἂν βούληται ὁ υἱὸς ἀποκαλύψαι : Clem., 
Hom. [quater]. 

8. καὶ οἷς (ἂν) ὁ υἱὸς ἀποκαλύψῃ vel ἀποκαλύψῃ ὁ 
υἱός : Justin [éer], Iren. [ter]. 

1 The passage, Clem. Hom. xviii. 7: καὶ οἷς (not ᾧ as Blass 
gives it) ἂν βούληται ὁ vids ἀποκαλύπτει, ought not to be taken into 
consideration, because it is a free quotation. 


288 THE SAYINGS OF JESUS 


A 


1. A section of the Marcionites,! the Marcosians, 
Justin (in the « Apology”), (Tatian), the Alexandrians 
(Clement, Origen [both practically always], and still 
later writers), and Eusebius (practically always) 
agree in reading ἔγνω. Accordingly ἔγνω is the 
reading which has in its favour the most ancient 
testimony. 

2. The reading ἔγνω stood in St. Luke ;? for this 
is suggested by the reading in Marcion’s gospel, and 
the hypothesis is supported by the “novit” of the 
very ancient Latin codices Vercellensis (a) and 
Veronensis (b) in St. Luke, while the remaining Old 
Latin codices (with the exception of “q”) read “ scit.” 
The hypothesis finally receives very strong support 
in the other aorists—éxpuwas, ἀπεκάλυψας,; ἐγένετο, 
παρεδόθη.ὃ 

1 According to the testimony of Irenzeus (and Adamantius). We 
may well believe that Tertullian read γινώσκει (‘‘scit”) in his 
exemplar of the gospel of Marcion; but there is no difficulty in 
supposing that this reading also found its way into exemplars of 
Marcion’s gospel, although ἔγνω was welcome to them. The same 
thing, therefore, happened with them as with Justin, who also gives 
both readings. If, however, any one feels bound to take up the 
position that Tertullian alone presents the genuine and unique 
text of Marcion—who accordingly read ywaoxer—still the number 
of ancient witnesses for ἔγνω is great enough to compel us to 
decide that St. Luke wrote ἔγνω. 

2 This is also the opinion of Blass, Keim, Meyer, and Schmiedel, 

3 Weiss, on the contrary, asserts that ἔγνω arose from conforma- 
tion with παρεδόθη. But why is it that this conformation takes 
place only in the text of St. Luke and not also in St. Matthew? 
That ἔγνω was supplanted by γινώσκει may however also be ex- 


plained from the fact that the following clause: ᾧ ἂν ἀποκαλύψῃ, 
seemed to demand the present tense in the preceding verb. 


ἘΧΟΌΒΒΌΒΙ 289 


3. We can, moreover, conjecture how it was 
that the reading γινώσκει arose in St. Luke, from 
the remarks of Irenzus in the passage quoted above ; 
the present made its way from St. Matthew into 
St. Luke and established itself there as an anti- 
Marcionitic reading. — It is already attested by Justin 
but in a later work (the Dialogue), and it pre- 
dominates in ecclesiastical manuscripts of Irenzus. 
In the West ἔγνω disappeared at an earlier date 
than in the East. 

4. The persistence of ἔγνω and its correct inter- 
pretation in the East is especially manifest in those 
quotations where this historic aorist was regarded 
as suitable when applied to the knowledge of the 
Father (on the part of the Son), and was accordingly 
preserved, while a present (in accordance with St. 
Matthew, vide imfra) was inserted into the Lukan 
text as applied to the knowledge of the Son (on 
the part of the Father), as in Adamantius (γινώσκει) 
and in Clem. Hom. [five times] and Epiph. Her., 
65, 6 (οἶδεν). 

5. In the text of St. Matthew the present, ἐπιγινώσ- 
ket, stood from the beginning (ἐπέγνω does not occur 
in any authority); it was also from the beginning 
repeated in the second clause, while the ἔγνω in 
St. Luke was not repeated. This formal difference 
between the two gospels explains those instances of 
mixed text wherein sometimes the ἔγνω is repeated 
(vide Kusebius), sometimes the ἐπιγινώσκει is not 
repeated (Irenzus), while the clauses are sometimes 
conjoined by καί, sometimes by οὐδέ. 

6. The reading oidev is found only in the 

T 


290 THE SAYINGS OF JESUS 


Clementine Homilies and in Epiphanius,’ some- 
times once, sometimes repeated in the two clauses ; 
it was thus confined to Syria and need not therefore 
be considered. It is probably to be explained from 
the influence of the Johannine vocabulary. 


B 


The clause concerning “ knowing the Father” steod 
first in Marcion (according to Iren., Tertull., and 
Adamant.), in the version of the Marcosians, in Justin, 
Tatian, Ireneus (but not always), the Clementine 
Homilies, Eusebius, in Codex U of St. Luke (and 
in Codex Veronensis), while the clause concerning 
«knowing the Son” stood first in the text of St. 
Matthew (with the exception of one cursive, which 
means nothing), in the remaining authorities for 
St. Luke, and in Clement of Alexandria. Irenzeus, 
Origen, the later Alexandrians and Epiphanius, 
attest both arrangements of the clauses. The solu- 
tion of the problem presented by these facts—seeing 
that Marcion had the Lukan text before him *—is 
that in St. Luke the clause concerning “ knowing the 
Father” certainly stood first, and that the con- 
trary was probably the case in St. Matthew. We 
cannot be quite certain about the passage in St. 
Matthew, only because we have no instance of quota- 
tion of the text of St. Matthew before Irenzus and 


1 The one place in Eusebius is an imperfect quotation, which has 
no weight. 

2 For this very reason it is not permissible to explain the pre- 
cedence of this clause by the influence of oral tradition or of an 
apocryphal gospel. 


EXCURSUS I 291] 


Clement of Alexandria; the witness of Irenzus, how- 
ever, is divided. 


C 


In regard to the concluding clause :— 

1. It is certain that ὁ υἱός was repeated in it; for 
the omissions in Syr.™*™ in Epiphanius (often) and 
Nicetas (who substitutes αὐτός); are of no account in 
the criticism of the text. 

2. The short form ἀποκαλύψῃ (for βούληται ἀπο- 
καλύψαι) has earlier attestation than the other, seeing 
that it occurs in Marcion, in the Marcosian version, 
Justin (thrice), Irenzus (as a rule), Clement of 
Alexandria, Origen (often), &c. 

3. The form ois ἄν has excellent sponsors in 
Justin, Irenzus (except in one passage), and the 
Clementine Homilies, but Marcion and the Mar- 
cosians do not give it. 

4. The indicative ἀποκαλύπτει (ἀπεκάλυψεν) in 
Syr. Mer, Cod. Vercell. (« revelavit”; so also Tertull., 
« De eae »” 21, but this does not say much), and 
once in Epiph., is too weakly attested for us to follow 
this reading. 

Result: We have now no means of determining 
oS of the three forms1—6 ἂν ὁ υἱὸς ἀποκαλύψῃ--- 
οἷς ἂν ὁ υἱὸς ἀποκαλύψῃ---ᾧ ἂν βούληται ὁ υἱὸς ἀπο- 
καλύψαι----ἶἰδ the original, whether at first this clause 
had different forms in St. Matthew and St. Luke, and 
how these readings were distributed between the two 
evangelists. On the strength, however, of the testi- 


1 The reading ols ἂν βούληται 6 vids ἀποκαλύψαι is only attested by 
the Clementines, and thus falls out of account, 


202 THE SAYINGS OF JESUS 


ὯΝ 


mony of Marcion, it is probable that ᾧ ἂν ὁ υἱὸς ἀπο- 
καλύψῃ stood in St. Luke, especially seeing that the 
Marcosians also give this reading, and that they also 


(vide supra) have followed the Lukan text." 


D 


The result of our investigations up to this point is 
that in St. Luke the saying read as follows :— 

πάντα μοι παρεδόθη ὑπὸ TOU πατρός, καὶ οὐδεὶς ἔνγνω 
τίς ἐστιν ὃ πατὴρ εἰ μὴ ὁ υἱός, καὶ τίς ἐστιν ὁ υἱὸς εἰ 
μὴ ὁ πατὴρ καὶ ᾧ ἂν ὁ υἱὸς ἀποκαλύψῃ, but in St. 
Matthew: πάντα μοι παρεδόθη ὑπὸ τοῦ πατρός, καὶ 
οὐδεὶς ἐπιγινώσκει τὸν υἱὸν εἰ μὴ ὁ πατήρ, οὐδὲ τὸν 

ee 
πατέρα τις ἐπιγινώσκει εἰ μὴ O υἱὸς [vel : τὸν πατέρα 
πο DROS: eka τ TDP τον «se UO πατὴρ] καὶ ᾧ [οἷς] 
ἂν βούληται ὁ υἱὸς ἀποκαλύψαι [vel: ἂν ὁ υἱὸς ἀπο- 
καλύψῃ]: 

But can we remain satisfied with this result? It 
is impossible, for the following reasons. (Let us at 
first consider the Lukan text) :— 

1. We do not at all expect to find the clause 
concerning “knowing the Son” in this connection 
(though of course it cannot be said to be a discrep- 
ancy); for this ascription of praise is concerned both 
at the beginning and the close with the knowledge of 
God. 

2. The historic aorist “ éyvw” suits excellently the 


2 It is possible to suppose that the original form read: ᾧ (οἷς) 
ἂν βούληται ὁ vids ἀποκαλύπτειν ἀποκαλύπτει, and that from this the 
two shorter forms were derived; but this cannot be proved.— 
᾿Αποκαλύψῃ and βούληται ἀποκαλύψαι may, besides, be taken as 
translation-variants, if βούληται ἀποκαλύψαι is regarded as simply 
a periphrasis for the future. 


EXCURSUS I 293 


Son’s knowledge of the Father, but ἐξ does not suit so 
well the Father’s knowledge of the Son; this has been 
noticed by thoughtful copyists, who have tried to 
overcome the difficulty in various ways (vide supra). 

3. The clause καὶ ᾧ ἂν ὁ υἱὸς ἀποκαλύψῃ only 
suits the clause οὐδεὶς ἐ ἔγνω τίς ἐστιν ὁ πατὴρ εἰ μὴ 
ὁ υἱός, but not the other clause with which it is connected 
above in St. Luke (the Son is God’s interpreter and not 
His own). This also has been correctly seen by the 
copyists, who have accordingly overcome the difficulty by 
transposition’ (or even by changing vids into αὐτός, 
which then refers to the Father). 

4. In Cod. Vercell. of St. Luke we even now read 
(vide supra) the saying, without the clause concerning 


“Knowledge of the Son.” 3 


In my opinion, we are simply forced to the conclusion 
that in St. Luke the words “kai τίς ἐστιν ὁ υἱὸς et 
μὴ ὁ πατήρ" were wanting. 

If they were wanting in St. Luke, they were also 
wanting m Q;* this goes without saying. Then, 
however,. it is a relatively insignificant question 
whether the first evangelist is to be regarded as 
responsible for their insertion, or whether originally 


1 But the transposition creates a new difficulty, seeing that 
“the knowing of the Son” now comes before “ the knowing of the 
Father,” which is very strange both in itself and in its context. 

* The readings of this codex elsewhere are of great weight. 

8 On behalf of the originality of the words an appeal is made 
to the rhythmic structure of the saying, which it is said demands 
them. But even without these words a rhythm is present, and I 
do not see that with their addition the rhythm is a better one. 

4 This is also Wellbausen’s opinion; but he does not enter 
closely into the history of the text. 


294, THE SAYINGS OF JESUS 


they were also wanting in the first gospel.1_ On this 
point one cannot arrive at any definite decision. 
At all events the interpolation is very ancient; for 
all our authorities for St. Matthew and all our 
authorities, except one, for St. Luke have it. 
The most probable, because the simplest, hypothesis 
is that «St. Matthew” himself brought it into 
the text—-the same evangelist who changed the 
historic aorist into the present and who wrote 
(xxviii. 18): “All power is given unto me in 
heaven and in earth.” It is not quite certain what 
position he gave to the interpolation; it is, however, 
extremely probable that he gave it the first place; 
for this is in accordance with the testimony of the 
MSS., and the history of the teat is most simply explained 
on such an hypothesis. If Greek Christians possessed 
from the beginning the two forms: οὐδεὶς ἔγνω τίς 
ἐστιν ὃ πατὴρ εἰ μὴ ὁ υἱός. ANd: οὐδεὶς ἐπιγινώσκει 
τὸν υἱὸν εἰ μὴ ὁ πατήρ; οὐδὲ τὸν πατέρα τις ἐπιγινώσκει 
εἰ μὴ ὁ vios—then all the mixed forms of text, 
together with their early appearance, are explained 
in the simplest way. The interpolation into the 
Lukan text of the words “The Son no one save 


1 So far as the content is concerned, the clause shows itself as 
an interpolation in St. Matthew as clearly as in St. Luke; for if it 
is placed at the beginning it conflicts with the natural order (it 
is to the Soa that the knowledge of the Father. is delivered, and 
the knowledge of the Son ought not to stand before the knowledge 
of the Father); if it is placed at the end, then the concluding 
clause is out of harmony with it. 

2 We have therefore no need to have recourse also to the in- 
fluence of a distinct oral tradition different from that of the 
gospels, or to an apocryphal gospel. Of course such an influence 
remains possible, 


EXCURSUS I 295 


the Father,” marks the first important step towards 
intermixture, which must have been taken almost 
at once, while the change of the aorist ἔγνω into 
the present marks the second step." 

The saying thus ran in Q as in St. Luke (or 
nearly as in St. Luke): ἐξομολογοῦμαί σοι; πάτερ, 
κύριε TOU οὐρανοῦ καὶ τῆς γῆς, ὅτι ἔκρυψας ταῦτα ἀπὸ 
σοφῶν καὶ συνετῶν καὶ ἀπεκάλυψας αὐτὰ νηπίοις" ναί, 
ὁ πατήρ, ὅτι οὕτως ἐγένετο εὐδοκία ἔμπροσθέν σου. 
πάντα μοι παρεδόθη ὑπὸ τοῦ πατρός, καὶ οὐδεὶς ἔγνω 
τὸν πατέρα [vel: τίς ἐστιν ὁ πατήρ] εἰ μὴ ὁ υἱὸς καὶ 
a 


ΠῚ e ελ 5 , 
ᾧ ἂν o vios ἀποκαλυψη. 


ΠῚ 


The source gave no information concerning the 
situation in which this thanksgiving was spoken, 
for «ἐν ἐκείνῳ τῷ καιρῷ ἀποκριθεὶς ὁ ‘Incots εἶπεν" 
says nothing. Nor may we draw any conclusion 
from the fact that in the source the thanksgiving 


1 In quotations of the passage torn from its context the Lukan 
form : τίς ἐστιν ὁ πατήρ (and τίς ἐστιν ὁ vids) almost everywhere dis- 
appears. No weight is, however, to be assigned to this circum- 
stance.—That the original readings should have entirely disappeared 
in the Greek MSS. of St. Luke, and almost entirely in the Latin 
MSS., is unfortunately by no means exceptional. Compare, e.g., 
how the true Lukan text has disappeared in the Lord’s Prayer 
(vide ‘‘Sitzungsber. d. Preuss. Akad., 1904,” 5. 195 ff.), or how 
ὠνείδισας in St. Mark xv. 34 has been deleted from the whole 
tradition of the East (id. 1901, 5. 261 ff.). The Lukan text has 
been far more thoroughly corrected from that of St. Matthew than 
our textual critics are inclined to admit. Our passage also bears 
witness to this fact. It is worthy of note that St. John 1. 18 (θεὸν 
οὐδεὶς ἑώρακεν Tumore’ ὁ μονογενὴς vids ὁ ὧν els τὸν κόλπον τοῦ πατρός, 
ἐκεῖνος ἐξηγήσατο) has had as good as no influence upon the textual 
history of our saying. 


296 THE SAYINGS OF JESUS 


followed after (or soon after) the condemnation of 
the Galilean cities, seeing that the passages are 
in a contrary sense.1 We have thus to deal with 
an isolated saying which has, however, been torn from 
a definite context, as is shown by the “ταῦτα at the 
beginnmg. ‘This fact of itself speaks against the 
hypothesis that our thanksgiving is a “Christian 
hymn”; in such an independent composition this 
retrospective “ ταῦτα would have been avoided. 

The first half of the first saying presents no 
occasion for objection. Our Lord offers thanks- 
giving to the Father openly—are we perhaps to say 
that this is inconsistent with St. Matt. vi. 6? He 
addresses Him as « Father” (not « My Father”) and 
as Lord of heaven and earth—so great is the Divine 
act for which praise is given! the context plainly 
shows that the thanksgiving is for something con- 
nected with our Lord’s teaching—z.e. His revelation of 
the knowledge of God (not with miracles, &c.); for it 
is only in regard to teaching that men are called 
σοφοί and wm.” ‘This distinction, and the state- 
ment that the νήπιοι show themselves receptive,’ is 


1 §t. Luke, very suitably so far as the thought is concerned, 
places the thanksgiving directly after the return of the disciples 
from their missionary journey, but it is quite improbable that this 
order rests upon tradition, because this evangelist also gives the 
condemnation of the cities just beforehand. 

2 Whether we are to lay any stress upon the absence of the 
article before σοφοί and νήπιοι is questionable. The absence can 
be interpreted as a limitation (not all the wise and not all the 
simple) ; its force can, however, also be rendered by the paraphrase : 
‘from such people as are wise” —“ to such people as are simple.” 

3 The significance of νήπιοι (‘ Peta’im,” as in Ps. xix. 8, cxvi. 6) is 
different from that of the word with St. Paul. In St. Paul the 
νήπιοι are always Christians who are still undeveloped like children. 


EXCURSUS I 297 


quite in accordance with other sayings of our Lord, 
and is therefore not peculiar. He, however, praises 
the Father, not only for the revelation vouchsafed 
to the νήπιοι. but also because the Father has hidden 
this knowledge from the wise and prudent. ‘There is 
a harsh note here which already sounded intolerable 
to Marcion, but it is also heard in other sayings and 
is an indication of genuineness. Moreover, we must 
here notice the aorists: not what God always does, 
but what He had done on the present occasion—in 
the success of the ministry of Jesus—was the subject 
of the thanksgiving. Hence some instance of success 
of this kind, notorious to all, which has not however 
been transmitted in history, must have preceded the 
thanksgiving. The vai takes up the ἐξομολογοῦμαι, 
and the clause ὅτι οὕτως εὐδοκία ἐγένετο ἔμπροσθέν 
σου takes up the thought of the preceding clause.’ 
The overpowering glory of the experience in the 
soul most naturally constrained the tongue to such 
repetition in the thanksgiving.” 

The first half of the saying dominates and de- 
termines the second half. In the first half our 
Lord gives thanks for that which had happened (the 
revelation of the knowledge of God), in the second 
half He gives clear expression to the fact that this 
revelation had been vouchsafed through Himself; for 
it was just the success of His own ministry that incited 

1 Cf. St. Matt. xviii. 14: οὕτως (οὐκ) ἔστιν θέλημα ἔμπροσθεν τοῦ 
πατρὸς ὑμῶν. Evdoxia reminds us of the εὐδόκησα at the Baptism. 

2 Also the vocative πάτερ is taken up by ὁ πατήρ, but is this 
a simple repetition? May not ὁ πατήρ here signify, ‘Thou who 


art the Father.”—The word οὕτως can only refer backwards, and 
has nothing to do with the introduction of what follows. 


298 THE SAYINGS OF JESUS 


Him to offer praise. Thus what follows necessarily 
connects with what goes before. The πάντα is exactly 
determined by what goes before and by what follows, 
as well as by the verb παρεδόθη. It cannot mean 
«all things” but only the whole doctrine (the doctrine 
is “ paradosis”), the complete revelation of the know- 
ledge of Godt It has been “delivered” to Him by 
the Father, and indeed first to Him the Son-——He has 
now learnt to know the Father; before Him no one 
knew the Father 7—then through Him to those who 


1 We have no choice but either to give πάντα an entirely un- 
limited significance (the government of the world, the Messianic 
power and authority), or to refer it to the knowledge (doctrine) as 
do Grotius, Hofmann, Holtzmann, Schmiedel, Joh. Weiss, Well- 
hausen, and others. The latter alternative is, however, alone 
possible, seeing that the passage proceeds at once to speak, and 
to speak exclusively, of the knowledge of God, and seeing that 
the preceding ἀποκάλυψις is unequivocally determined, by the 
contrast between σοφοί and νήπιοι to which it refers, as a revelation 
of a knowledge. The objection that παραδιδόναι can only be used 
of human transmission of teaching, and that the word therefore 
cannot have this sense here (Pfleiderer), is perverse. In St. Matt, 
xxviii. 18, we do not read ‘‘ waped60n,” but ““ ἐδόθη ᾽᾿ μοι πᾶσα ἐξουσία 
ἐν οὐρανῷ καὶ ἐπὶ γῆς. 

2 The καὶ (οὐδεὶς ἔγνω) after παρεδόθη (ὑπὸ τοῦ πατρός) is not quite 
clear ; it is easiest to take it as explicative or rather consecutive, 
‘‘The knowledge of the Father is included in the delivery of the 
complete doctrine,” or ‘‘ The knowledge of the Father follows upon 
this delivery.” Weiss, on the contrary, supposes that the clause 
introduced by καί gives the essential ground for the πάντα μοι 
παρεδόθη. So indeed we are compelled to interpret, if with Weiss 
we accept the words, ‘“ No man knoweth the Son save the Father,” 
and regard their position at the beginning as correct; for this 
clause can be regarded neither as an explanation of nor as giving 
the result of πάντα μοι παρεδόθη. But of course we are forced 
simply to read into this clause the idea that it gives the ground 
of what goes before, for no hint of this is given in the passage 
itself. The words indeed fall quite out of the context. If one 


EXCURSUS I 299 


were receptive, of whom it is therefore now true, just 
as of the Son, that: πάντα αὐτοῖς παρεδόθη. 

In this train of thought, when it is compared with 
the utterances of our Lord, which are certainly genuine, 
there are two elements which might be regarded as 
strange: first, the abstract distinction that is drawn 
in the terms «the Father” and “the Son,” then the 
assertion that “No man has known the Father save 
the Son.” The same distinction is also found 
(according to Wellhausen) in St. Mark xiii. 32 (οὐδὲ 

er oF ᾽δὲ e e? 3 A e , 1 = 
οἱ ἄγγελοι οὐδε ὁ υἱός» εἰ μὴ ὁ πατήρ)» and that in 
a saying which denies our Lord’s knowledge of the 
future, and thus assuredly belongs to the most ancient 
tradition. However, as to the οὐδείς, it ought not 
to be pressed nor taken as Marcion interprets it, as 
if it implied a rejection of the prophets of the Old 
Testament. It says no more than is said in St. 
Luke x. 24: πολλοὶ προφῆται καὶ βασιλεῖς. ἠθέλησαν 
ἰδεῖν ἃ ὑμεῖς βλέπετε καὶ οὐκ εἶδαν, or in the words 
concerning the Baptist and the least in the Kingdom 
of God. On the other hand, importance is to be 
assigned to the aorist ἔγνω (in distinction from the 
present). Nothing is said of a relationship of the Son 
to the Father that is ever abiding—to say nothing 
takes one’s stand on the correct text, we should at first expect 
the passage to run in the following form: “All has been delivered 
to Me by the Father, and I alone have learned to know Him, and 
he to whomsoever I will to reveal Him.” But it is quite intelligible 
that ‘“‘the Son”’ should have taken the place of “‘I,”’ seeing that 
this ‘‘I” showed itself as “Son” in the very fact of this complete 
and primary knowledge. 

1 Cf. also St. Luke xxii. 29: κἀγὼ διατίθεμαι ὑμῖν καθὼς διέθετό μοι 


ὁ πατήρ μου τὴν βασιλείαν, ἵνα ἔσθητε καὶ πίνητε ἐπὶ τῆς τραπέζης μου 
ἐν τῇ βασιλείᾳ μου, of which the “antiquity ” is unmistakable, 


300 THE SAYINGS OF JESUS 


of timeless; on the contrary, this ἔγνω also stands 
within the sphere of the ἐξομολογοῦμαι κτλ. at the 
beginning: our Lord offers thanksgiving to the Father 
because He has delivered to Him all knowledge, because 
He the Son is the first to learn to know the Father, 
because He the Father has revealed this knowledge to 
the νήπιοι. and because it will continue to be revealed 
only through Him the Son. The passage throughout 
deals with circumstances of actual historic fact. 

If the saying belongs to the best and most ancient 
tradition, it can have been spoken by our Lord only 
during the later period of His ministry, and it further 
presupposes that during this period our Lord upon 
other occasions called Himself «the Son.” ‘This con- 
clusion will necessarily be disputed by those who 
suppose themselves bound not to allow our Lord any 
other self-designation than that of a Teacher, of a 
Prophet, and—at the close of His ministry—of the 
Suture Messiah. But the transition from the designa- 
tions of Teacher and Prophet to that of the future 
Messiah demands, both in the self-consciousness of 
Jesus and also in outward expression, some middle 
term, and it is difficult to see why tradition must be 
supposed to be in error when it presents us here with 
the designation “the Son.” If this could mean 
absolutely nothing else than «J am the present 
Messiah,” then it would be unintelligible; but the 
concrete situation in which our Lord found Himself 
limited the sphere of significance of the expression 
both for Himself and for His hearers. At the pre- 


1 Note how the two halves of the saying are brought into 
correspondence by ἀπεκάλυψας and ἀποκαλύψῃ. 


EXCURSUS I 301 


sent He is the Chosen One, the Beloved One, thus the 
Son, and therefore in the future—that is, soon—He 
will come in the clouds of heaven and will receive the 
office of Messiah, whose function is essentially active. 
If criticism can produce no valid objections against 
the tradition that our Lord towards the end of His 
ministry called Himself the Son of Man (in the sense 
of Daniel), so, in my opinion, there is still less ground 
for hesitation in accepting the genuineness of the 
tradition that our Lord called Himself «the Son,” 
because it is absolutely impossible to imagine how He 
could have arrived at the conviction that He was the 
future Messiah without first knowing Himself as stand- 
ing in an unique relationship to God. What, however, 
our Lord in this passage says of Himself as the Son, 
goes beyond what is expressed in other sayings, not in 
the thought itself, but only in its pregnant form.? 


1 In conclusion, I would with all reserve also bring forward an 
historical witness to the antiquity, even to the genuineness of this 
saying. I do not share the confidence with which lately countless 
conceptions and words of St. Paul are traced back to utterances 
of our Lord; but whenever I read 1 Cor. i. 19, 21 (γέγραπται γάρ" 
ἀπολῶ THY σοφίαν τῶν σοφῶν, καὶ τὴν σύνεσιν τῶν συνετῶν ἀθετήσω... 
ἐπεὶ γὰρ ἐν τῇ σοφίᾳ τοῦ θεοῦ οὐκ ἔγνω ὁ κόσμος διὰ σοφίας τὸν 
θεόν, εὐδόκησεν ὁ θεὸς διὰ τῆς μωρίας τοῦ κηρύγματος σῶσαι 
τοὺς πιστεύοντα5), 1 am ever again struck by the coincidence here both 
in thought and vocabulary with our saying, though all of course has 
passed through the crucible of the Pauline mind. Nevertheless, im- 
pressions are deceptive, and are in this instance far from attaining 
to the dignity of a proof. Pfleiderer, ‘‘ Das Urchristentum,” i.? 
s, 435 f., thinks that it is very probable that the saying is de- 
pendent upon St. Paul. But νήπιοι is not Pauline (vide supra), and 
“the specifically Pauline thought that the real knowledge of Christ 
and of God is hidden from the natural man and is only revealed 
to human perception by the Spirit of God,” is simply read by 
Pfleiderer into our text, which is concerned with a contrast of quite 
a different nature. 


302 THE SAYINGS OF JESUS 


The original version of the saying (in Q) may be 
_ defended on good grounds; but the canonical version 
in both gospels is « Johannine” in character and in- 
defensible. By the interpolation of the clause, «no 
man knoweth the Son save the Father” before the 
clause concerning “ knowledge of the Father,” and by 
the change of the aorist into the present, the whole 
complexion of the saying is altered*—-so seriously 
altered that even the significance of the ταῦτα and 
the πάντα in the clause “ πάντα μοι παρεδόθη ” tends 
to become a matter of doubt.2 A formal likeness of 
Father and Son, who are distinguished only by the 
different names, and a relationship of Father and Son 
which never had a beginning, but remains ever the 
same, now come to expression. Of course we are not 
absolutely obliged thus to interpret the canonical 
saying,® yet we cannot by any method of interpreta- 
tion make it much less metaphysical. If the first 

1 Note also that by the interpolation the rhythmic structure of 
the saying is emphasised. This is not unimportant in reference 
to the question whether, and in what measure,’the rhythms in the 
sayings of Jesus are original. 

* In logical consequence an attempt was now made also to 
change παρεδόθη into παραδέδοται (vide supra, Justin and Hippolytus), 
but this correction is no longer found in the manuscripts. 

3 We can also interpret the present ἐπιγινώσκει in St. Matthew, 
as if it were determined by the preceding παρεδόθη, and therefore 
as if it were not to be understood as timeless but as describing 
the result of an historical action. 

4 Zahn (“ Matth.,’”’ 5. 441) expounds the passage as follows: ‘* The 
Son is thus not only the agent of revelation, who imparts the 
knowledge of God to those who are receptive, but He is also 
Himself a mystery, which was at first hidden from man and which 
needed a revealing. The Son belongs to the objects (ταῦτα) which 
are now opened to knowledge. The knowledge of the Son as the 
only Son of God, in the full sense of the word, is inseparably 


EXCURSUS I 303 


evangelist himself wrote the passage as we read it, then 

—even with the most cautious interpretation of the 
_ passage—his own Christology approached very nearly 
‘to that of the Johannine writings in one of the most 
important points, and it can therefore be only due to 
his relatively faithful reproduction of his sources that 
this characteristic does not more frequently appear in 


his gospel. 
IV 


The second saying, which in St. Matthew follows 
immediately after the first, has come down to us only 


connected with the knowledge of God as the Father of Jesus and 
of those who become sons because they belong to Jesus. It is, 
however, significant that the knowledge of the Son is mentioned 
first. This is the new fact, that which distinguishes the present 
revelation from all which preceded it—the fact of a Man whom to 
know is the way to attain to the knowledge of God. For this very 
reason the knowledge of God, which is now attainable, is a new 
thing. We moderns would say: With the personality of Jesus a 
new religion, Christianity, came into existence. While, concern- 
ing the knowledge of the Father, it is expressly said that the 
Son alone imparts it, a corresponding statement in regard to the 
knowledge of the Son is wanting. It is, however, obvious that 
this knowledge can only be imparted by Him, of whom it is said 
that He alone possesses such knowledge —namely, the Father, 
‘The Father reveals the Son as the Son reveals the Father [!]. As, 
however, the knowledge of the Father and the knowledge of the 
Son are only two sides of the same mystery which is now revealed, 
at follows that the Father and the Son in fellowship with one another 
are both subject and object of the Revelation” [the italics are mine]. 
This is quite enough to help us to a definite decision concerning 
the historical character of the saying as given in St. Matthew. It 
is noteworthy that Zahn’s exegesis justifies the placing of the clause 
concerning “ knowing the Son” at the beginning, while this place 
was really given to it because it was felt to be absolutely necessary 
not to separate the clause, ‘‘and to whomsoever the Son will reveal 
Him,” from the clause concerning ‘‘ the knowledge of the Father,”’ 


304 THE SAYINGS OF JESUS 


in the Gospel of St. Matthew. Scarcely any variants 
are found in the versions and quotations: (1) In 
verse 28 πάντες is wanting in Tatian; (2) in the 
same author, «et qui habetis graves afflictiones” (or 
“onera gravia”) was probably interpolated before 
καὶ πεφορτισμένοι; i (3) i in verse 29 Ephraem quotes : 
‘ ‘ 

ὅτι ἥσυχός εἰμι, πραὺς καὶ ἐπιεικὴς καὶ ταπεινὸς τῇ 
καρδίᾳ. ‘The omission of πάντες is alone worthy of 
consideration ; this omission also occurs in Syr.” and 
Syr ’A’ ἐμοῦ in verse 29 is, so far as I know, 
never wanting in the Versions and in quotations; it 
is not therefore permissible to delete it on the sole 
authority of x (pr. man.). 

This saying—whose Aramaic origin is unmistak- 
able—is from the point of view of rhythm still better 
constructed than the former saying, and is dominated 
by the conceptions φορτίον and ἀνάπαυσις. It runs 
as follows :— 

Δεῦτε πρός με (πάντες) of κοπιῶντες Kat πεφορ- 

, 
τισμένοι, 

κἀγὼ ἀναπαύσω ὑμᾶς" 

"Ἄρατε τὸν ζυγόν μου ἐφ᾽ ὑμᾶς 

καὶ μάθετε ἀπ’ ἐμοῦ, ὅτι πραὔς εἰμι καὶ ταπεινὸς 

τῇ καρδίᾳ, 

καὶ εὑρήσετε ἀνάπαυσιν ταῖς ψυχαῖς ὑμῶν' 

‘O γὰρ ζυγός μου χρηστός, 

καὶ τὸ φορτίον μου ἐλαφρόν (ἐστιν). 

1 The variants in Pistis Sophia and Agathangelus are of no 
account, seeing that they are mere paraphrases; In Pseudo- 
cyprian adv. Jud. 7, the saying reads: ‘‘ Venite ad me omnes qui 
sub onera laboratis, et ego vos reficiam . . . est enim iugum meum 


placidum et onus [the African version read ‘sarcina,’ vide Ter- 
tullian and Cyprian] levissimum.” 


EXCURSUS I 305 


It is addressed, not to the circle of disciples, but to 
those standing outside; yet it has in view, not the 
νήπιοι (still less sinners), but those who were suffering 
under the burden of the heavy yoke of ordinances.' 
It should therefore be compared with St. Matt. xxiii. 4. 
The form of this saying is similar to that of the pre- 
ceding saying. As there the first thought is for the 
revelation itself, and then this revelation is described 
as being brought about by the Son, so here there is 
first a general proclamation of the « rest,” and then it 
is said that this rest is attained through the accept- 
ance of His yoke. The conception ἀνάπαυσις reminds 
us of the Beatitudes and of the conclusion of a saying 
which is handed down in the gospel of the Hebrews 
(βασιλεύσας) éravaravcera,” the second half is 
founded upon Jer. vi. 16. The outward form re- 
minds us of the saying in St. Mark vi. 31: δεῦτε... 
ἀναπαύσεσθε, and the situation brings to mind the 
passage which immediately follows in St. Mark (verse 
34): εἶδεν πολὺν ὄχλον, καὶ ἐσπλαγχνίσθη ἐπ’ αὐτούς, 
ὅτι ἦσαν ὡς πρόβατα μὴ ἔχοντα ποιμένα. Also the 


1 Perhaps this interpretation is too definite: οἱ κοπιῶντες signifies 
in general “ those who are wearied” ; but from the combination 
of πεφορτισμένοι and μάθετε ἀπ᾽ ἐμοῦ, it can with probability be 
deduced that our Lord had in His eye those who stood under the 
burden of Pharisaic teachers and of Pharisaic legal observance. 

2 Vide “Sitzungsber. 1904,” 5. 175 ff.; (re ἀνάπαυσιν, St. 
Matt. xii. 43. 

3 The whole saying is full of reminiscences of the Old Testament, 
ef. above all Isa. lv. 1 (also xiv. 3, xxviii. 12); Jer. xxxi, 25; 
158. xlii. 2. Note that Jer. vi. 16 is given in an independent 
translation ; for ἀνάπαυσις is not found in the LXX version of the 
passage where ἁγνισμός is read, This is important in connection 
with the question of the origin of the saying. 

U 


900 THE SAYINGS OF JESUS 


commandments of Jesus—for with these the saying is 
concerned—are a yoke," like all commandments that 
deal with doctrine and life, but compared with the 
burdens which were imposed by the scribes, they 
are a “gentle”? yoke and a light® burden. The 
ς καί " before “ μάθετε" may be taken as consecutive, 
and the ὅτε should not be taken as casual; we trans- 
late therefore: «Thus will ye learn of Me,* that I am 
meek and lowly.”® In these words our Lord assigns 
to His personality a significance both in relation to 
the character of His commandments and also in- 
directly in relation to their appropriation; in this 
point, therefore, there exists a distinct connection in 
thought with the former saying. 

It was just this connection in thought and inward 
relationship that moved «St. Matthew” to place 
the one saying directly after the other; but this 
can scarcely have been their original relative posi- 
tions, for the situation presupposed in each of the 


1 In Didache 6, the doctrine (the Commandments) of Jesus 
are called “ ὁ ζυγὸς τοῦ κυρίον." Cf. also Acts xv. 10: νῦν οὖν ri 
πειράζετε τὸν θεόν, ἐπιθεῖναι ζυγὸν ἐπὶ τὸν τράχηλον τῶν μαθητῶν, 
ὃν οὔτε οἱ πατέρες ἡμῶν οὔτε ἡμεῖς ἰσχύσαμεν βαστάσαι. With 
the Rabbinic writers, ‘‘ yoke” is a technical term for command- 
ments. 

2 Χρηστός is found again in the gospels only in St. Luke v. 39, 
vi. 35; in the latter passage it is used of God, so also in Rom. ii. 4 
and 1 Pet. ii. 3 (from the Psalms). Χρηστότης is likewise often 
used of God. Both the Latin versions and Syr.s™- translate χρηστός 
in our passage by ‘“‘ suavis.” 

8 °EXadpés is only found again in the New Testament in 2 Cor. 
iv. 11. 

4 Mavédvew ἀπό τινος also in St. Mark xiii. 28 (St. Matt. xxiv. 32) ; 
Gal. iii. 2; Col. i. 7; Heb. v. 8. 

5 χαπεινός ; only here in St. Matthew. 


EXCURSUS I 307 


two sayings is different ;1 the first saying is concerned 
with the knowledge of God and its revelation, the 
second with directions for the conduct of life; besides 
this, the first saying is a thanksgiving, the second 
is the cry of a missionary preacher.? Moreover, 
it is not certain that the second saying is derived 
from Q, seeing that it is wanting in St. Luke. If 
its inward relationship to the first saying be brought 
forward as an argument in favour of its belonging 
to Q, it must not be forgotten that the first saying 
is unique in Q and does not represent a type of 
sayings in that source. In favour of its belonging 
to Q one might appeal to the fact that while the 
beginning of the first saying seems to be fashioned 
after Sirach 11, 1 (ἐξομολογήσομαί σοι, κύριε βασιλεῦ), 
so also the second saying has parallels in Sirach li. 
(verse 23: ἐγγίσατε πρός με, verse 26: τὸν τραχηλον 
ὑμῶν ὑπόθετε ὑπὸ ζυγόν, verse 27: καὶ εὗρον ἐμαυτῷ 
πολλὴν ἀνάπαυσιν. But these parallels are too 
general to be of much weight. Hence the question, 
from what source the first evangelist derived this 
saying, must remain open. 

Are we, however, compelled to assume that this 
saying was derived from secondary tradition? I see 
no convincing reasons for such a supposition ; cer- 
tainly not in the form of the saying, for it is mere 
perversity to assert that the most ancient tradition 


1 It is much more probable that the continuation of the saying 
is more original in St. Luke (x. 23, 24)—St. Matthew has this 
continuation in xiii, 16, 17—but this also does not admit of 
proof. 

2 Δεῦτε occurs often in St. Matthew ; it is not, however, peculiar 
to this gospel among the writings of the New Testament. 


΄σο. 


308 THE SAYINGS OF JESUS 


could not have represented Jesus as speaking in this 
way, or that Jesus could not have so spoken; nor 
in its general content, for it cannot be doubted 
that our Lord regarded those who were plagued 
with the Pharisaic ordinances as heavy laden, and 
that He promised rest to such persons (the word 
“souls” ought not to be pressed). Neither, finally, 
can such reasons be deduced from the specific con- 
tent of the saying—namely, that a man after accept- 
ing His yoke would learn of Him that He was 
meek and lowly; for though this peculiar form 
of self-assertion is unique there is no want of self- 
assertion elsewhere, even in tradition which is quite 
trustworthy. Here it is probably Messianic,” and 


1 There was no need to say wherein the rest consisted ; and the 
question whether it belonged to this world or to the coming 
Kingdom is not to the point here.—If it is certain that our Lord 
devoted Himself to the relief of the sick and diseased, then these 
κοπιῶντες are covered by the saying. 

2 Isa. xlii. 2 and allied passages probably stand in the back- 
ground. It is most noteworthy that there is here absolutely no 
reference to the cross and the death. This could scarcely have 
been wanting in a Christian hymn of later times. Jesus simply 
says that meekness and lowliness are to be learned from Him, and 
that the meek and lowly will find rest—nothing else. The saying 
that men must take up their cross and follow Him is at all events 
later than our saying. Moreover, the seeming discrepancy with 
those commandments in which great emphasis is laid upon keeping 
the Law, and with those sayings in which it is said that one must 
through much tribulation enter into the Kingdom of God, is rather 
a sign of genuineness than of the contrary. I know of no proof 
that the primitive community felt the yoke of Jesus to be easy 
and His burden to be light—with the exception of 1 John vy. 3 
(at ἐντολαὶ αὐτοῦ βαρεῖαι οὐκ εἰσίν), a passage which perhaps looks 
backward to our saying. The solution of the discrepancy in the 
mind of our Lord lies in the thought that by His example, from 
which men are to learn, the commandments become light. 


— 


EXCURSUS I 309 


moreover finds noteworthy support in 2 Cor. x. 1. 
St. Paul writes there: [Παρακαλῶ ὑμᾶς dia τῆς 
πραὔτητος Kat ἐπιεικείας τοῦ Χριστοῦ. Hence by 
means of the preaching of the Apostle the πραὕὔτης 
καὶ ἐπιείκεια Of Christ had become to the Corinthians 
something that was not only well known and con- 
stantly spoken about, but also something that partook 
even of the nature of a set formula. If then the 
πραὕτης καὶ ἐπιείκεια Χριστοῦ had thus become 
quite a technical term, it is not too much to sup- 
pose that St. Paul was acquainted with our saying. 
The contrary hypothesis that 2 Cor. x. 1 was the 
source of the saying would be indeed adventurous. 
However, here also the evidence adduced is not 
sufficient for a proof of dependence. 


Of the two sayings the first, which is derived 
from Q, belongs to the best authority which we 
possess concerning our Lord, nor can any valid 
objections be alleged against its content when once 
it is restored to its original form. The second say- 
ing may come from Q, but it can also come from 
another source; it is also most probably not the 
continuation of the first saying. No proof can be 
given that it belongs to secondary tradition. 

In neither case is the verbal accuracy of the 
tradition of course guaranteed; but it is decisive 
for the recognition of the relative genuineness of the 
sayings that in the first saying the whole emphasis 
is laid upon the knowledge of God and its revela- 
tion, in the second upon the yoke of Jesus in the 
sense of commandments; that, further, in the first 


310 THE SAYINGS OF JESUS 


saying the primary condition of the knowledge 
of God is simplicity, while in the second saying 
the primary condition of the « ἀνάπαυσις " is meekness 
and lowliness; that, moreover, in both sayings the 
(Pharisaic) “perfect ones” form the contrast and 
everything is strictly confined within the Jewish 
horizon; and, finally, that in the first saying Jesus 
is represented as the revealer of the knowledge of 
God, while in the second He is represented as the 
instructor and pattern of the quietistic virtues 
without a single reference to the Cross and Passion." 
If by the word “Gospel” one understands what 
St. Paul and St. Mark understood by this word, 
then these sayings are not “gospel sayings” and 
have nothing in common with the specific conceptions 
-of Paulinism. We have only the choice between 
assigning them to the creation of a later prophet 
of the primitive Jewish-Christian community who— 
strangely enough—omits all reference to the Cruci- 
fixion, or assigning them to our Lord Himself. 
Given the two alternatives, there seems to me no 
doubt about which to choose. 


EXCURSUS: If 
ConcCERNING THE VoICcE FROM HEAVEN AT THE 
Baptism (St. Luxe 111. 22) 
Even in St. Matthew and St. Luke the Baptism 
of our Lord by St. John presented a certain difficulty 


1 This negative element is in itself a proof that these sayings 
belong to Q, or at least are nearly allied to that source, for in Q 
also there is no reference to the Cross and Passion. 


EXCURSUS II 311 


(vide J. Bornemann, “Die Taufe Christi durch 
Johannes,” Leipzig, 1896), and the fourth evangelist 
by the method of his description of the event has 
almost got rid of the Baptism itself. Also from the 
fact that (1) the Baptism was not included among 
the articles of the ancient Roman Symbol, and that 
(2) reference was made to the event much more 
rarely than from its importance we should have 
expected—we see that in later times the inconvenience 
of the tradition was still felt. In this connection the 
behaviour, for example, of the African writers is 
instructive: in spite of the multitude of quotations 
from the New Testament found in Tertullian, Cyprian, 
and the more ancient African writers, it is impossible 
to ascertain the words of the voice from heaven as 
read by either of these writers, because it is never 
quoted by any of them (nor by Novatian).’ 

But by far the most inconvenient version of tic 
tradition must have been that which gave the voice 
from heaven (after Ps. ii.) in the form: vids pov 
εἶ σύ. σήμερον γεγέννηκά oe—for, unless sophis- 
tical reasonings were called to aid, it excluded the 
miraculous Conception. 

' This version of the voice from heaven is nowhere 
found in the MSS. of St. Matthew; but in St. Luke 
it is attested by D and the Old Latin codices Vercell., 
Veron., Colbert. Paris., Corbei. (ff.”), Rhedig. Vratisl.” 
In agreement with these authorities we find, in the 
West, Justin (twice), “Acta Petri et Pauli,” 29; 


1 Neither is it quoted by the Apostolic Fathers and the Clementine 
Homilies. 

2 According to Epiphanius both versions stood in the phos 
of the Ebionites. . 


312  ##THE SAYINGS OF JESUS 


Lactant., Juvenc., Hilary (five times), the translator 
of Origen («“ Hom. in Ezech.” 17, 3),' the author of 
the pseudo-Augustinian “ Queest. Vet. et Nov. ‘Test.,” 
Tychon., Faustus in Augustine, and Augustine.” After 
the beginning of the fifth century the reading vanishes 
completely ; the Vulgate gave it its death-blow. 

In the East, omitting Justin, who ought also to 
be reckoned among Eastern authorities, it is not 
attested by Tatian® and Ireneus, but is given by 
Clem. Alex.,4 the «Didascalia Apost.” (therefore 
also by the « Apost. Constit.”), and by Methodius. 

With our present knowledge of textual criticism 
we are accordingly safe in deciding that the most 
ancient exemplars of St. Luke’s gospel, which were 
current in the West, agreed in reading the version of 
Psalm ii., while in the East this reading was found 
only in a few exemplars. 


1 Was this also the reading of Origen himself? We may not 
appeal with certainty to ‘‘Comm. in Joh.” p. 37 (ed. Preuschen), 
Also Hom. 27 in ‘‘ Luc.” speaks to the contrary. 

2 Augustine writes (‘‘ De Consensu Evy.,” ii. 14, 31): “ Illud vero 
quod nonnulli codices habent secundum Lucam, hoc illa voce 
sonuisse, quod in psalmo scriptum est: ‘Filius meus es tu; ego 
hodie genui te,’ guanguam in antiquioribus codicibus Gracis non 
inveniri perhibeatur [the Greek codices are zpso facto the more 
ancient for Augustine], tamen si aliquibus fide dignis exemplaribus 
confirmari possit, quid aliud quam utrumque intellegendum est 
quolibet verborum ordine de ccelo sonuisse ?” 

8 This of course proves nothing, as Tatian’s Diatessaron is a 
gospel harmony ; but Syr.si2. of St. Luke does not give the version 
according to Psalm ii., nor does the Peshitto. 

4 It is remarkable that in ‘‘ Ped.” i. 6, 25, he gives the two 
versions one after another, just as in the Gospel of the Ebionites 
according to Epiphanius.—It is uncertain whether the reading 
is attested in the Epistle to Diognetus, chap. xi.; the version of 
Celsus in Origen, ‘‘ Contra Celsum,” 1, 41, is also uncertain, 


EXCURSUS II 313 


If we now ask what St. Luke wrote himself; here 
also, after what we have now learned, there can be 
no doubt about our decision. We know that con- 
formation of the texts of (St. Mark and) St. Luke 
to the text of St. Matthew not only began very early 
but that tt was most actively carried on at the time which 
les before our manuscripts, indeed before the time of the 
quotations made by the Fathers; and that the pre- 
decessors of the most ancient Western manuscripts did 
not suffer therefrom so much as those of the East. 
It therefore follows that we must insert the voice 
from heaven, according to the version of Psalm 11.» 
into the text of St. Luke.t 

If, however, St. Luke wrote thus, we cannot 
possibly suppose that he intentionally, and upon his 
own authority, altered the tradition which lay before 
him in St. Mark (σὺ εἶ ὁ vids μου ὁ ἀγαπητός, ἐν σοὶ 
εὐδόκησα); for he could not but have found the 
version according to Psalm ii. inconvenient, after 
what he had narrated in chapters i. and ii. He 
thus accepted this reading and substituted it for the 
reading of the Markan account, because it was 
presented by a tradition which he regarded as more 
credible than, or at least as credible as the tradition 
contained in St. Mark. 

1 Recourse to an apocryphal gospel or to the hypothesis of a 
variant translation in oral tradition is not to be commended here, 
seeing that in critical problems of this kind one must try to 
confine oneself to known quantities, so far as these exist, and to 
make the best of them. Here, as a matter of fact, they are quite 
sufficient for the solution of the problem. The hypothesis of a 
later intrusion of the reading into the Lukan text is improbable, 


because of its content, and has no analogy in its favour after the 
Canon of Four Gospels had once been formed. 


x 


914 THE SAYINGS OF JESUS 


Seeing, however, that St. Luke directly before 
and directly afterwards follows the source Q, and 
that it therefore is a priort very probable that an 
account of the Baptism of our Lord stood in Q, 
it is also not less probable that the version of the 
voice from heaven in St. Luke (according to 
Psalm ii.) is derived from Q, and that St. Luke 
substituted this version for that of St. Mark because 
he regarded it as more trustworthy.* 

From this it follows (1) that St. Luke valued the 
scurce Q at a higher rate than, or at least at as high 
a rate as he valued St. Mark; (2) that the story of 
the Baptism together with the voice from heaven 
is not an invention of St. Mark, but goes back to 
a legend which lies behind St. Mark and Q; (8) that 
this legend had its more original form m Q, for the 
voice from heaven in the version of St. Mark 
(which is followed by St. Matthew) is clearly seen 
to be an attenuated form when compared with the 
version of Q (St. Luke).? 


1 It is possible that the narrative of the appearance of a light at 
the Baptism, of which the earliest witness is given in Tatian, also 
originally stood in St. Luke, and thus also in Q; but the evidence 
is not so strong as in the case of the voice from heaven, seeing 
that St. Mark and St. Matthew give nothing which corresponds 
and that the narrative is wanting in D. 

2 The σήμερον is decisive even though the Markan account may 
contain it implicitly. On the other hand, it seems to me scarcely 
worthy of attention that in Q the Son is spoken of as being 
‘“‘begotten” (as in the first chapters of St. Matthew and St. Luke, 
there in realistic fashion, but in Q metaphorically), while St. Mark 
does not give this conception at all. Perhaps the version of the 
voice from heaven, according to Psalm ii., has an ancient witness 
in Heb. i. 5 f.; for this passage perhaps refers to what occurred 
at the Baptism—yet this is not certain. 


INDEX TO THE RECONSTRUCTED 


St. MatTHew. 
a. J 
1, 7-12 
SS Sa 
v. 2-4, 6, 11, 12 : 
Waster, fo, 15,25, 26, 
v. 39, 40, 42, 44-48 
vi. 9-13. 
vi. 19, 20. 


vi. 21-33 . 


vii, 1-5, 7-12 


me is. 34 τς 
vil. 16-18 . 
vii, 21, 24-28 
1. οἷς 
viii, 5-10, 13 
viii. 11, 12 

Vili. 19-22 

ix. 37, 38 . 


| 


TEXT OF Q 


PAGE St. ΜΑΤΤΗΒΥ͂. 


315 


PAGE 


40, 127 85, 135, 
Lie δὴ 141, 146 
yg Se SS Eh ae ae 90, 132 
48, 128 bese 14, 132, 
53, 137, xi.3-13 .. 144 
142, 144 . 16, 133, 
ee 135 
63, 136 | xii. 22, 23, 25 21, 136 
67, 140 | xii. 27-30, 32 : 9]. 136, 140 
4. 1597} 1 xi. 33: ; 68, 130 
140, 144 | xii. 38-42 29. 137 
8, 130, | xii. 43-45 94, 137 
136 | xiii. 16, 17 25, 135 

67, 142 | xiii. 31-33 26, 142 
68,130 | xv. 14. 28, 130 
70,131 | xvii. 20 91, 145 
Tio Sv 7 28, 144 
74,131 | xviii. 12, 13. 91, 143 
717, 142 .| xviii. 15, 21, 22 93, 145 
10,133 | xix. 28. 95, 146 
12,133 | xxi. 32. 118 
eRe ese ie oes 8 mmr 119 
12, 134 | xxiii. 4, 13, 23,25-36. 96, 138 
te io ly feo os a te 29, 143 
13, 134 | xxiii. 37-39 . 29, 143 
13, 134 | xxiv. 26-28, 37-41 . 105, 145 
79, 130 | xxiv. 43-51 . 31, 141 
14,139 | xxv. 14-30 122 
82; 199. SEV 90... 34, 146 


916 


St. LUKE. 
ΤΡ ss 
i. 7, 8, 9, 16, 17 
iv. 1-13 


vi. 32, 33, 35, 86 
vi. 37, 38, 41, 42 


vii. 18, 19 


vii, 29, 30. 


xi. 9-13 


xi. 14, 17, 19, 20, 23 . 


xi, 16, 29-32 


INDEX 


PAGE 
40, 127 
1, 127 
41, 128 
48, 128 
58, 129 
9, 129 
59, 129 
8, 130 
28, 130 
79, 130 
68, 130 
70, 131 
71, 131 
74, 131 
90, 132 
14, 132 
118 
16, 133 
79, 133 
11, 133 
12, 133 
13, 134 
134 
79, 134 
12, 134 
133 
133 
13, 134 
17, 135 
86, 135 
25, 135 
63, 136 
8, 136 
21, 136 
22, 137 


St. LUKE. PAGE 
xi, 24-26 . . oye ΕΠ 
5 Ὁ ΛΑ: ΘΑ τα 53, 137 
p< Ba Ss ee 4, 137 
xi. 39, 41, 42, 44, 46-52 96, 138 
xii. 2 14, 139 
xii. 3-9 82, 139 
ΣΉ ΤΌ 21, 140 
xii, 22-31 4, 140 
xii. 33 . 66, 140 
ἘΠ ee ΩΣ : 4,140 
xii. 39, 40, 42-46 : 31, 141 
xii. 51, 53 .. 85, 141 
xii. 58, 59 54, 142 
xiii. 18-21 26, 142 
xin, Ba. 67, 142 
xiii. 28, 29 77, 142 
xiii. 34, 35 29, 143 
xiv. 11 29, 143 
xiv. 16-24 119 
xiv. 26, 27 86, 143 
xiv. 34, 35 53, 143 
xv, 4-7 91, 143 
xvi. 13 4, 144 
xvi. 16 15, 144 
xvi. 17 53, 144 
xvi. 18 54, 144 
ἘΠΕ. 28, 144 
xvii, 3,4 . 93, 145 
Xvii. 6. : 91, 145 
XVii. 23, 24, 26, ΟἿ, 

34, 35, =e : } 16 
xvii. 33 86, 146 
xix. 12-27 : 122 
se ΚΟ (oo, . « 384, 146 
xxii. 28,30 . . . . 95, 146 





ΡΣ 


hell 


aay 


w At 


ΔῊΝ 


iv ee ᾿ 
Th 


A 


bs te ete fl 


aA 


Th wi 


ell 


Ah 
rh 





GAYLORD 


1 


i Ϊ] Wh | 





1012 01117 5611 


DATE DUE 








PRINTEDINU.S.A. 











